← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/37235/2019disposed of

Gazebo Developers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Ludhiana And ORS

2020-03-03Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari,Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan2 pages

CWP No.37235 of 2019 & CWP No.37471 of 2019 -1215+216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 03.03.2020 1.

CWP No.37235 of 2019 Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager Kapil Dev Singh Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana and others Respondents 2.

CWP No.37471 of 2019 Ripss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner, Central Excise and Services Tax, Ludhiana and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Aman Garg, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1 [in CWP No.37235 of 2019]. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1 [in CWP No.37471 of 2019]. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.03.05 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

CWP No.37235 of 2019 & CWP No.37471 of 2019 -2AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] By these two petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of respondent No.1 in attaching the property, which as per them, they had purchased from actual defaulter (respondent No.2 in both the petitions).

[2] It is not disputed that no order has been passed in respect of claims made by the petitioners that properties are not liable to attachment for any reason whatsoever. [3] Learned counsel for the respondents points out that till date the petitioners have not approached the respondents. [4] In our considered opinion, this matter should first be decided by respondent No.1, before this Court can take a view on this.

[5] Resultantly, these petitions are disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to approach the respondent No.1 with its claim within a period of two weeks and respondent No.1 would pass a speaking order thereon within a period of four weeks thereafter. [6] Since these petitions are disposed of, the pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

[AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE March 03, 2020    

           PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.03.05 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh