Sales Tax Bar Association (Regd.) & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1223 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 13-12-2018
W. P. (C) 9575/2017 & CM No. 38987/2017
GST
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. PRATEEK JALAN JJ.
Petitioners Through: Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Mr. Suresh Agrawal, Mr. B.R. Jain, Ms. Purvi Sinha, Mr. Chetan Shukla, Mr. Yuvraj Singh and Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advs.
Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC along with Mr. Harshul Choudhary, Mr. Sahil Sood, Mr. Viplav Acharya and Ms. Malika, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Mohit Kumar Bafna, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr. Nitya Sharma, Standing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
this case Rule 71 – sub-rules (2) and (3) which in fact indicate that there can be “rectification for a month”, thus implying that a rectification within a month is not necessary but that as many rectifications, as are necessary, for the dealers to correct the mistakes discerned later not merely on account of its errors but on account of the errors, in receipt of inputs or from the buyers' transactions would also be admissible. Given these provisions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that placing a quantitative cap over a specified period may not be permissible. Learned ASG submitted that certain instructions would be sought in this regard.
It was submitted by the learned ASG, secondly, that the date for filing annual return has n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =