High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Anand Poly Bags Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissione Of Commercial … on 22 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Anand Poly Bags Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissione Of Commercial … on 22 July, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


EN ‘mg HEGH COURT 012’ KARNATAKA, B_,{‘n’* %

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF_..IIJ L’:Y_ 1 ” J

BEFORE ;

THE H0N*BL15:. MR. JUSTJCE “mm MOEvi;5§E.\f:’1§Efi)I§*r’ ” .

WP No 143o2%c3:%f2oo9rT-KS?)
BETWEEN H M H

M /S ANAND POLY BAGS PVT Lam”

GUDDEANGADY UD.AYV..AR % A
UDUPI REF3PB.Y– I’F3S”DIRECT(}’R””

M 3/m5:1<:*;~:I;1§11' s.;..(_).=M ;'xN*ANJ:3 KIN:

Ac}1~’E:’3%:1 ‘ms, .%

%%%% 1 PETITIONER
(By S1111;VAN’iH_,”‘;4.D’JOvCATE)

ANDL

1_;f “1”}.EPU’I”¥’..§jC§MMISSIONER 0:? COMMERCIAL
u U33′-UPI

A A2 . §3{§1vfl\«£:I:SjSIONER op’ COMMERCIAL TAXES

vA’NI_J1{A THERIGE KARYALAYA
GANL3H:NAGAH, BANGALORE-9

3 “STATE 01:’ KARNATAKA

~ REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT OF’ FINANCE
AMBEDKAES \fEEif)HI’,
VIBE-{ANA SGUDHA,
A BANGALORE-560 om RESPQNQEWS

(By Sri. SHIVAYOGIIVIATS, GGVT ADVOCATE)

UK

Ties WP FILED UN{)};:’.R ARTICLES zéfisi

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF’ INDIA ‘roQUAeH ‘l”I»IE
NOTICE m.25.2.o9, ISSUES m ,’_§’4HE_-‘R1″,” ~x;1D33,;3,1\Ii~i–J .

AND ETC.

-.4

This petition coming on iI”oIi’i,p1eli1VI1i:1:é§i’y:

this day, the Court made’2:iie..foI1oWi_rig:w–_VVA W
T

Petitioner aseeiie to the returns
flied -for the when ordered
by the petitioner that
excess. Rs. 1,52,555/, impemng
the epplicafion dated 6.6.2006 for

refund. ii

– ‘ iS__ the allegation of the petitioner that despite

reipexaieii .1f_e1ii:i11ders no action was taken for 3 years over

the. said -zigplication. However, on 19.22.2009, the 18*

respoiident is said to have issued a notice AI”1I1€X¥J.I.’€-Cr

i upon the petitioner to submit an explanation

‘”over the claim for refund, which when responded by

ietter dated 23.2.2009, iead to several correspondences

JIM

4. Sri.S}”1ivay0gimatl1, iearneci counsel for the State
submits that, if extended a week’s time, the 15*
respendent wouid pass an order on ti1e -‘-1:ot;ices

Armexures-J and L impugned in this petiticgfi

petitioner is aggrieved by the 11:13} ordeiif n1;a:§}”

appeal and question the samfiiri’ ‘an i V

proceedings.

5. Lt-::ar}:1ed counse1V___fibr»~,_ti1§; péfitjbigaf does not

oppose–‘*;h_é”LsaiEIi§:,s11¥$-1i1isSiofi;’ V v
“1.’j3 e_wi”i£ ‘ié disposed of g”a11ting a Week’::;

ti1;:1e’ 1:9 the» raéipondent to comply with this order

% A {fem

53;”

ftzfigg