M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited v. Petitloner
High Court
14 May 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited v. Petitloner
Date of order
14 May 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited v. Petitloner, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Issue: 2 Learned counsel for the Revenue has produced aphotocopy of the demand draft No.885649 amounting to CWP No.25924 of 2017 (O&M) 2 L94,13,68,290/- (4Fiity Four Crore Thirteen Lakh Sixty EightThousand Two Hundred Ninety only) drawn in favour of thepetitioner along with covering letter by theAssistantC...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25924 of 2017 (O&M)Date ot Decision: 14.05.2018
M/s Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited
Versus
... Petitloner
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another
... Respondents
CORAMI:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present:- Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioner,for the petitioner,
Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counselfor the respondents.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ.(ORAL)
In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of awrit in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for setting aside andquashing the order dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-l1) and ordedated 2/.10.201/ (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 forAssessment Year ZOIl1-l12 and for refund of the amount oL94,00,00,000/- illegally recovered from the bank account of thepetitioner by respondent No.l pursuant to the notice datedal.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 226(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961.
2 Learned counsel for the Revenue has produced aphotocopy of the demand draft No.885649 amounting to
CWP No.25924 of 2017 (O&M)
2
L94,13,68,290/- (4Fiity Four Crore Thirteen Lakh Sixty EightThousand Two Hundred Ninety only) drawn in favour of thepetitioner along with covering letter by theAssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh,
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has noinstructions whether the demand draft has been received.
4In view of the above, we dispose of the present writpetition as having been rendered infructuous as the respondenthas produced the photocopy of the demand drait in favour of thepetitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file anapplication for revival of the petition in case the demand drait hasnot been received.
(AJAY KUMAR NMIITTAACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)14.05.2018JUDGEvandana
Whether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable
Yes/NoYes/No
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.