9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Jain and Mr Virag Tiwari, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr R.A. Iyer, Advocates with Mr Nityanand, VATO to Special Zone and Mr Amit Sharma, LA (VAT) (Special Zone) ORDER 1. This order is in continuation of the detailed order passed by this Court on 3rd February, 2016. 2. The facts have been set out in detail in the said order and do not require to be repeated. What, however, requires to be noted is that this Court, by the said order, set aside the order dated 16th March 2013 passed by the Value Added Tax Officer sealing the three office premises of the Petitioner: at Shivaji Marg, Nehru Place, and Udyog Vihar. The Court also set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade submissions on the orders issued by the Commissioner in FormDVAT-50 on 9th August, 29th September, 31st October and 11th November, 2016. The running theme of these orders is that the powers under Sections 58 and 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 have been withdrawn from the Assistant Commissioners ATOs. Although Mr. Jain sought to highlight certain inherent contradictions in these orders, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine them in these proceedings. It will be open to any person aggrieved by any of these orders to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 4. One of the issues that remain to be considered in terms of the orders dated 3rd February 2016 and 15th March 2016 passed by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the said affidavit. According to him there were certain factual inaccuracies in the affidavit. 7. This Court does not propose to examine the correctness of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner at this stage. The Court, in view of what has been held in the order dated 3rd February 2016, proposes that a token amount be awarded to the Petitioner as costs with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedies as far as the loss allegedly suffered by it is concerned. The Court, therefore, makes it clear that is not examining the correctness of the affidavit dated 26th April, 2017 filed by the Petitioner. 8. Having considered the other affidavits filed thus far in light of the order dated 3rd February 2016, the Court conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
