Case Law Details
Ankit Babeley Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Petitioner was unable to file Trans-1 within permissible time and requested to allow the petitioner to file the same so as to enable him to claim transitional credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the Act. It was urged that no heed was paid by the respondents. Accordingly, a prayer was made that respondents be directed to consider and decide the said representation.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not object to the said prayer and stated that if the said representation is pending, the same will be decided by the respondents in accordance with law.
After perusing the writ petition and hearing learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No.2, 3 and 4, as the case may be, to take a decision on the representation (Annexure P/7) filed by the petitioner within fifteen days by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative through video conferencing, in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
