9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 975 (in short, "the Rules"). Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Ganjam Ranga, Berhampur. The appellate authority reduced the total demand to Rs. 5,21,981. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was assailed by both the petitioner and the Revenue before the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal. The appeals were numbered as second Appeal Nos. 1035 and 1034 of 1988-89, and 1109 and 1110 of 1988-89 respectively. The Tribunal allowed appeals filed by the Revenue and restored the demands raised by the Sales Tax Officer. An application filed under section 24(2) of the Act by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal, and as indicated above the matter is pending adjudication in this Court under section 24(2) of the Act in S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e result of such reference, the excess tax paid shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions of section 14." Similar view was expressed in Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. Bansi Dhar and Sons AIR 1986 SC 421; [1986] 157 ITR 665 (SC), while considering the question of grant of stay during pendency of reference application in the background of section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was held that it cannot be said that the High Court has inherent power or incidental power in the matter of a reference pending before it to grant stay of realisation or to grant injunction. That must remain within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and pendency of a reference does not detract f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, 1995, accepted the view. 6.. The case at hand has some peculiar features. The first appellate authority granted substantial relief by reducing the total demand to the tune of Rs. 5,21,981. 7.. The main ground of the petitioner's challenge is about the maximum capacity up to which the unit could work. These aspects shall be considered by this Court when the section 24(2) application is taken up. Therefore, we do not express any final opinion on merits, but on consideration of the peculiar circumstances as highlighted above, we direct that in case petitioner pays without prejudice to its claims involved further sum of Rs. 3 (three) lakhs, subject to verification of the claim of payment of Rs. 7,91,964 by the end of October, 1997, realisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
