REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Arun Jain (Huf) Appellant

V/S

The Commissioner, Value Added Tax Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA V. SHRI JUSTICE S. R. TENDOLKAR [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT FOODS V. COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
BUDHAN CHOUDHRY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KUNNATHAT THATHUNNI MOOPIL NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
GURSAHAI SAIGAL IN ALL APPEALS VS. COMMISSIONER OF I T PUNJAB IN ALL APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. HAJI K HAJI K KUTTY NAHA [REFERRED TO]
N B SANJANA ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CEN TRAL EXCISE BOMBAY VS. ELPHINSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
R K GARG R K KARANJIA MADHU MEHTA P K SOI S S BEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED BOMBAY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY 111 BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. ATUL FASTENERS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION BANK VS. SARASWATI ABHARANSALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX UP VS. SANJIV FABRICS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAKESH KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAXMI COTTON GINNING PRESSING AND OIL INDUSTRIES KOLHAPUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JINSASAN DISTRIBUTORS VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI KIRAN INDIA PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAX DEPTT [REFERRED TO]
M/S PENTEX SALES CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DELHI [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [REFERRED TO]
GHERU LAL BAL CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
JATINDER MITTAL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAXES [REFERRED TO]
AIDEK TOURISM SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEV ENTERPRISE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
JAYAM & CO. VS. ASSISTANT COMNMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR VS. PARKER INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 9 (2) (g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 (DVAT Act) as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Illustratively, the facts relating to two of the writ petitioners, i.e. Suvasini Charitable Trust () in W.P. (C) No. 4086/2013 and Arun Jain (HUF) in W.P. (C) Nos. 4573, 4574, 4704, 4709, 4710, 4713, 4714 and 4788/2016, are discussed. Facts concerning Suvasini Charitable Trust.

(3.) SCT is a charitable trust organization registered under the DVAT Act. It is engaged in the activity of providing food items in the Akshardham Temple complex. It states that it has paid Value Added Tax on its purchases. It avails Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the VAT paid on its sales. SCT states that it has made purchases from selling dealers registered under the DVAT Act on the strength of tax invoices which prove the collection of tax by the vendor from the purchasing dealer and is a valid document for availing ITC.

Click here to view full judgment.

ARUN JAIN Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, VALUE ADDED TAX

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address