- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
MATRIX CLOTHING PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
MATRIX CLOTHING PVT. LTD.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE
Present Mr. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana. ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
CM-15197-CWP
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 139 days in filing the appeal is hereby appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP which was dismissed as withdrawn.
CM-15196-CWP
2. Application is allowed and the applicant is exempted from filing original/certified/typed copes of Annexures RA
RA-CW-305-2023
3. This review application is filed by the appellant seeking review of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by this Court in CWP
4. We find on merits that CWP with one other case CWP RA-61-CW-2023 was filed in CWP
CHANDIGARH
CM-15197-CWP-2023 & CM in/and RA-CW-305 Date of Decision:
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate for the review
, J. (Oral) -2023
-2023
-20383 -20380-2020. Review applic -20380-2020 which was decided in light
-15196-CWP-2023 -2023 in CWP-20383-2020
02.08.2024
...…...Petitioner V/s.
….....Respondents -applicant.
condoned as the -1 to RA-5.
-20383-2020.
-2020 was decided along ation i.e.
1 of 3
of the judgment passed in the present Writ Petition which is under review. The Court has passed the following order in RA
dated l6.12.2022 whereby the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in CWP
M/s Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
vide order of even date
(M/s Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd.) opted to challenge the order before the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.6917/2023 and the following order was passed on 17.04.2023:
of in terms of the said case and the limited relief was granted, it is not for this Court to review the order since it is open to the applicant to avai
Court in the main case. The present application for condonation of delay in filing of 38 days as well as the review application are hereby dismissed."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that 20(2) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 as well as Rule 41(4) of the Haryana VAT Rules, 2003 was not considered and noticed respectively by this Court in its correct perspective.
-15196-CWP-2023 -2023 in CWP-20383-2020 Page 2 of 3
"The present review application seeks review of the order
Vs.
. 2. The assessee in the main case -
"After some argument, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR submitted that the petitioner be permitted to amend the return, if permissible in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, she seeks liberty to withdraw the petition.
Liberty granted.
The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of." Keeping in view the above, since the matter was disposed l of the same remedy as granted by the Apex -61-CW-2023:-
-20383-2020 titled
State of Haryana & others,
Section
2 of 3
6. We have carefully considered the arguments raised at Bar by the learned counsel for the review
this Court and find that the provisions having been quoted and noticed in the order as extension and also findings have been arrived at on the said aspects.
7. In view thereof, no reason for review made out. Accordingly, the Review Application stands
8. All pending applications filed in this case shall stand disposed of accordingly.
August 2, 2024
Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable
-15196-CWP-2023 -2023 in CWP-20383-2020 Page 3 of 3
-applicant and the judgment passed by
[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
:
:
of the impugned order is
dismissed.
]
JUDGE
[PANKAJ JAIN]
JUDGE
Yes / No Yes / No
3 of 3
Alert