^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Delhi High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

MANMOHAN
SANJEEV NARULA

Pet. Counsel

A.r.madhav Rao

Res. Counsel

Vikas Mahajan

Abhishek Khanna

Sonu Bhatnagar

Petitioner / Applicant	BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
Respondent	UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Court	Delhi High Court
State	Delhi
Date	Dec 3, 2020
Order No.	W.P. (C) 6914/2020
Citation	2020(12) TAXREPLY 3582
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The application has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the writ petition in order to incorporate a prayer challenging the proviso to Section 16(4) of the Central Goods And Services Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST Act, 2017') as well as Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DGST Act, 2017'). Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant states that though the ground to challenge the proviso to Section 16(4) had been pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition, however, inadvertently, the prayer challenging the validity of proviso to Section 16(4) was not incorporated in the Prayer Clause (A) of the petition. Issue notice. Mr. Vikas Mahajan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. Dhananjaya M....