9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents seeks further time for doing so. However, having regard to the nature of controversy arising in the present petition, need is not felt to grant further time to the respondents to file the counter affidavit. Further, we may also note that in several other matters comprising of a batch, counter-affidavits had not been filed, and the coordinate Bench of this court, to which one of us (Sanjeev Narula J.) is a member, has already heard the arguments and reserved the judgment. Accordingly we are proceeding to decide the present petition on the basis of the available record and the submissions made by the counsels. 4. By way of the present petition, directions are sought to allow the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Form. Subsequently, the Petitioner also approached the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 4 making a similar request vide letter dated 29th November, 2019. However, despite the above-noted and other representations given by the Petitioner, the Respondents took no action. Left with no other option, the petitioner has now approached this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that issue involved in the present case is covered by several decisions of this Court, and in particular the judgments rendered in Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9250; Arvind Beauty Brands Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C.) No. 4556/2019 dated 7th August, 2019]; A B Pal Electrical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the last date for filing the original return i.e. 27th December, 2017. We may also note that the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 106, has dismissed the SLP filed by the department against the judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. We are satisfied that the difficulty faced by the Petitioner was a genuine one. Due to an inadvertent human error and oversight on the part of the Petitioner, its substantive right should not be denied. Petitioner should therefore not be precluded from having its claim examined by the authorities in accordance with law. 10. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we have no hesitation in allowing the request of the Petitioner and accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
