Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (3) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the assessment year 1994-95 and admit the appeal filed on June 5, 2000 and that original petition stands converted to this writ petition on being transferred to the file of this court. The brief facts for disposal are as follows: For the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner was assessed to tax by the proceedings dated March 31, 2000 levying the tax, surcharge 15 per cent on the tax due and additional sales tax, totalling a sum of Rs. 20,82,681 after adjusting the payment originally made. As against which, the petitioner filed an appeal on June 3, 2000. It appears that the requirement of section 31 of the appeal provision, i.e., payment of 25 per cent of the disputed tax has not been made by the petitioner on the premise that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, Manali Assessment Circle, Chennai [2006] 147 STC 246 (Mad). Before considering the above decision, I am of the view that it is worthwhile to put in this judgment the basic requirement of following the statutory provision of section 31 of the TNGST Act which reads as follows: 31. Appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. (1) Any person objecting to an order passed by the appropriate authority under section 4A, sub-section (3) of section 10, section 12, section 12A, section 14, section 15, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 16, section 18, sub-sections (2) of section 22, section 23 or section 27 other than an order passed by an Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the statute. Now let us consider the decisions, which are cited across the bar. First of all, in the case of Sangfroid Remedies Ltd.v.Union of India [1999] 1 SCC 259, the pre-deposit as contemplated under section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act was under consideration. So is the case of Vijay Packaging System Ltd.v.Commissioner of Customs and C.Ex., A.P.[2000] 118 ELT 553 (SC) in which also the very same provision of sections 35F and 35L of the Central Excise Act has been considered. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act provides for dispensation of pre-deposit and empowers the statutory authorities either to reduce the admitted duty or totally waive the duty payable for maintaining the appeal, if the assessee satisfies the appellate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1962 was put in issue before the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D.Mehta and Jawahar D. Mehta v.Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay reported in [1988] 4 SCC 402, the Supreme Court has held as follows: That the right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. It is not the law that adjudication by itself following the rules of natural justice would be violative of any right constitutional or statutory without any right of appeal, as such. If the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain condition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority. In the present case, no recovery proceedings is taken against the company for recovering the amount without the consent of the BIFR or the appellate authority. It is the company which filed the statutory appeal. When the company itself volunteered to file an appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates