High Court Reserves Judgment in National Petroleum Construction Company Tax Dispute

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

National Petroleum Construction Company vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Anr. (High Court of Delhi)

W.P.(C) 8527/2019 & CM APPL. 35220/2019

Date: 5th November 2019

Key Takeaways:

1. The High Court has heard arguments from both parties in a tax dispute case.

2. The court has requested written submissions from both counsels.

3. The judgment has been reserved, indicating a decision will be made after careful consideration.

Issue:

The central legal question is not explicitly stated in the provided text. However, it appears to be a dispute between National Petroleum Construction Company and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax regarding international taxation matters.

Facts:

1. The case is being heard in the High Court.

2. It is registered as W.P.(C) 8527/2019 & CM APPL. 35220/2019.

3. The hearing took place on November 5, 2019.

4. The bench consisted of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sanjeev Narula.

Arguments:

The specific arguments from each side are not detailed in the provided text. However, we know that:

1. Both parties presented their submissions to the court.

2. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh, produced the original record and a copy of the note sheet, which was shared with the petitioner's counsel.

Key Legal Precedents:

The text doesn't mention any specific legal precedents cited in this case.

Judgement:

The court has not yet delivered a final judgment. Instead:

1. The court heard arguments from both parties.

2. Both counsels were instructed to file written notes, not exceeding three pages each.

3. The judgment has been reserved, meaning the court will take time to consider the arguments before delivering a decision.

FAQs:

1. Q: What does it mean when a judgment is "reserved"?

  A: When a judgment is reserved, it means the court has heard all arguments but needs more time to consider the case before making a decision. The verdict will be delivered at a later date.

2. Q: Who are the main parties in this case?

  A: The main parties are National Petroleum Construction Company (the petitioner) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) (the respondent).

3. Q: What was the outcome of the hearing?

  A: The court heard arguments from both sides, requested written submissions, and reserved judgment. A final decision has not yet been made.

4. Q: Who represented the parties in court?

  A: Balbir Singh (Senior Advocate), along with Prakash Kumar, Monica Benjamin, and Rashi Singh represented the petitioner. Raghvendra K. Singh (Senior Standing Counsel) represented the respondent.

5. Q: What's the significance of the original record and note sheet mentioned?

  A: The production of these documents in court suggests they contain important information relevant to the case. Sharing them with the petitioner's counsel ensures transparency in the proceedings.

1. We have heard the submissions of learned counsels. Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh learned senior standing counsel for the Respondent has produced the original record and he has also tendered in Court the copy of the note sheet on the record and the copy has been served on counsel for the Petitioner as well.

2. Both the counsels shall file their written note not exceeding three pages each.

3. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J

NOVEMBER 05, 2019