Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1368 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-1-2019
W. P. (C) No. 378/2019
GST
MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JJ.
Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish N Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr. C.S Lodha, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi and Ms. Shweta Kabra, Advs.
Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Chandra Prakash, Mr. Akash Mohan and Mr. Farman Ali, Advs. for R-1. Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Amit Bansal, Mr. Ravi Prakash,CGSC, Mr. Sahil Sood, Mr. Harshul Choudhary and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing counsel for R-2 to 4.
O R D E
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d from Dealers and deposited with the Government being demanded again
Rs. 36.25
7
TRAN-2 credit
Rs. 78.97
A number of issues and contentions have been raised on each of the seven issues mentioned in the aforesaid chart. We need not elaborate upon and go into the said aspects at this stage since the matter does require consideration and response from the respondents.
Regarding serial no. 6, it is pointed out that an amount of Rs. 36.25 crores has already been deposited with the Government, which fact is not disputed. With regard to serial no. 7, it is the contention of the petitioner that TRAN-2 credit was made available in March, 2018, therefore the impugned order is erroneous. On serial no. 3 i.e. loss in North- East Exemptio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
crores which would be paid on or before 15th March, 2019 and 15th May, 2019 respectively. We have passed the said direction after we have been informed that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 160 crores. While computing the said figure, we have also taken into account the amounts mentioned in the aforequoted chart.
Subject to the said deposit, no coercive steps would be taken in proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. Penalty proceeding would be kept in abeyance.
However, investigation, as directed, would continue and orders may be passed. It will be open for the petitioner to file an application in the present writ petition or a fresh writ petition in case of an adverse order in such investigation.
Counter-affidavit would be f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =