REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GOPAL TRADERS THROUGH ITS PROP. VIKAS CHAND JAIN Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRY V. STOAIR [REFERRED TO]
M/S DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA AND SONS V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
RASHID AHMED VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD KAIRANA OPPOSITE PARTY; AND UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNITED MOTORS INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HIMMATLAL HARILAL MEHTA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA DISCOUNT COMPANY LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANIES DISTRICT I CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
BABURAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI VS. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAMAGAR [REFERRED TO]
CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
S N SHARMA VS. BIPEN KUMAR TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHANKAR DAL MILLS INDER SAIN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
KUNTESH GUPTA VS. MANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SITAPUR U P [REFERRED TO]
SALONAH TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES NOWGONG [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
M D TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. NEETHIVILANGAN KUMBAKONAM [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ SARA LEE LTD VS. ASST COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Neerav Chitravanshi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) Short question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether after submission of the annual return, the proceedings could have taken place in pursuance to the provision contained in Section 25(1)(ii) of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 in short 'Act'.

(3.) The petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of trading of mustered oil and cake, had filed the annual original return in pursuance to Section 24 of the Act on 09.03.2010. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 16.03.2010 passed by the opposite party No. 3, in pursuance to the power conferred under Section 25(1)(ii) of the Act, the provisional assessment was made and in pursuance to which demand notice has been issued to pay the tax.

Click here to view full judgment.

GOPAL TRADERS Vs. STATE OF UP

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address