High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPT/66/2020disposed off

M/S Yashpal Automobile Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India

2020-07-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 66 of 2020

1. M/s Yashpal Automobile Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Office At Manraj Honda, Nagpur Naka, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Through One of Its Directors And Authorized Signatory, Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia, S/o Late Shri S. Yashpal Singh Bhatia, Aged 49 Years, R/o B-29, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Through Secretary, New Delhi

2. The GST Council Through The Secretary, GST Council Secretariat, Vth Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North Block, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi-110001

4. Principal Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise Building, Tikrapara, Dhamtari Road, Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Commissioner, State Goods And Services Tax, Civil Lines, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

6. Assistant Commissioner GST, Range Bhilai 2, Near 32 Bungalows, Near Raipur Naka, HUDCO Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh -----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 :

Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, A.S.G.

For Resp. No. 3 & 4 :

Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Adv. General

-2Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15.07.2020

1. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now, the writ petition may be disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again, subject to outcome of the SLP No.7425-7428 of 2020 in a similar issue pending before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

2. The limited relief sought for by the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul