TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their own merits i.e. for the F. Y. 2014-15 as well as for the F. Y. 2015-16 - Application allowed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3803 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2022 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA AND HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Appearance: MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant a proprietary concern has prayed for the following reliefs: 7 The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and be pleased to: (a) to quash and set aside the order dated 23/12/2021 (Annexure A) passed by the respondents. (b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the implementation and operation of the order dated 23/12/2021 at Annexure A to this petition and stay the further proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating authority is at page : 64 of the paper book. 5. The writ applicant went in appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority declined to entertain the appeals unless and until 20% of the total tax liability towards pre-deposit was not made good by the writ applicant. 6. The appellate authority, ultimately, dismissed the appeals on the ground of failure on the part of the writ applicant to make pre-deposit. 7. The writ applicant went in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the following order: 6. Considering the submission of both the parties, it is clear that appellant has not complied with the pre-deposit direction passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority and preferred the present second appeal. Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed the 20% of tax amount of ₹ 14,37,544/- on tax amount of ₹ 73,37,722/-. It is also clear that as per section 73 of the GVAT Act, appellant is bound to pay reasonable tax amount as against the tax levied by the Tax Authority, but appellant has failed in complied with it. Since the first appeal is summarily dismissed without gone into merits of the case, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oof of movement of goods carried on by travel company. E. Owner of the travel company has filed an affidavit on oath giving the conformation for the movement of goods of appellant from Ahmedabad to U.P. In a said affidavit reference is made that Officer of VAT Department Mr. Suthar has verified such movement of goods and no discrepancy was found there in. F. A letter dated 10/03/2019 written by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Sector-4, Gorakhpur, U.P. asking the certain details about the genuineness of transaction of appellant with M/s. Shreenathjee Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. is confirmed by the letter dated 10/03/2019 written by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Sector-4, Gorakhpur, U.P. G. Assessment order of the buyer M/s. Shreenathjee Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. for accounting year 2014-15 is placed on the record of this Tribunal clearly shows that turnover of sales made by the appellant to the buyer of U.P. is incorporated in its books of accounts and same is taken into consideration by the Assessing Authority of U.P. Commercial Tax Department as per the assessment order. H. Appellant has submitted a copy of assessment order of M/s. Shreenathjee Furnishing P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng unreasoned and against the principle of natural justice. 13. The operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal reads thus: ORDER Second Appeal No. 647 of 2019 is allowed. The order passed by the First Appellate Authority - learned Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Appeal, Ahmedabad, dated 15/05/2019 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh hearing. The First Appellate Authority is directed to hear the appeal afresh, on merits and in accordance with law preferably within six months from the date of receipt of record of this appeal in his office. Stay against recovery proceeding shall continue till the final disposal of the First Appeal. 14. Thus, the first appellate authority was directed by the Tribunal to hear the appeals a fresh on merits and the recovery proceedings were also ordered to be stayed till the final disposal of the first appeals. 15. We are of the view that all the aspects which the Tribunal took into consideration referred to above are the very same aspects even so far as the assessment for the F. Y. 2015-16 is concerned. 16. We noticed that during the course of hearing of the Seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
