REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A.J.Infrastructures Appellant

V/S

STATE OF H.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LONDON AND NORTH EASTER RLY. CO. V. BERRIMAN [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK V. CANARA BANK AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
BUILDERS SUPPLY CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF AURANGABAD VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KHEMKA AND COMPANY AGENCIES PVT LIMITED STATE OF MYSORE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA: GULDAS NARASAPPA THIMMAIAH OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SOMASUNDRAM MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VS. NATIONAL IRON AND STEEL ROT LING CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAN SWARUP OM PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DENA BANK VS. BHIKHABHAI PRABHUDAS PAREKH AND CO [REFERRED TO]
SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED VS. FAIRGROWTH FINANCE SERVICES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. STATE BANK OF INDORE [REFERRED TO]
UNIQUE BUTYLE TUBE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI VS. PILIBHIT PANTNAGAR BEEJ LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR JAIN VS. PRADESHIYA INDUSTRIES AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF U P LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI UDYOG LTD VS. RAM LAL [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. NEPC INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
UTI BANK LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE INDL DEVELOPMENT and INVESTMENT CORPN LTD VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are auction purchasers and have assailed the order dated 22.12.2006 whereby their application for getting the auctioned property mutated in their name in the revenue record has been rejected and an entry of demand of arrears of sales tax dues of erstwhile owners has been entered into the revenue record.

(2.) PETITIONER is a private limited company. Respondent No.1 is the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.2 is Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur District at Nahan, respondent No.3 is Tehsildar, Nahan, respondent No.4 is Secretary (Excise and Taxation), Govt. of H.P., respondent No.5 is Excise and Taxation Officer, Nahan and respondent No.6 is State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Bank).

(3.) ON 24.2.2006 itself the Bank informed all the concerned authorities including the Superintending Engineer, HPSEB, District Sirmaur at Nahan; Labour Inspector, District Sirmaur at Nahan; office of the respondent No.4; AETC and Excise and Taxation Department, Nahan, Sales Tax Officer, District Sirmaur at Nahan; the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur at Nahan, the Assistant Collector (Tehsildar)-respondent No.3, Land Revenue Department, District Sirmaur at Nahan, about the sale of the property to the petitioner to the following effect:-

Click here to view full judgment.

A.J.INFRASTRUCTURES Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address