TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the last two years - Held that:- It is apparent that the VAT authorities assumed that the transporter was in some way responsible for the payment of VAT. The Revenue undoubtedly relies upon Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act, 2004. Yet, none of the orders made by the Revenue in this case have actually cited or raised the presumption which is sought to be raised on its behalf in the Court - direction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of VAT Department. The appellant, a transporter is aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2014 of the Delhi VAT Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) which had rejected a review proceeding preferred against the prior order dated 10.09.2013. The Tribunal upheld its previous order directing pre-deposit of 40% of the tax sought to be recovered and 20% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtation. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that Section 3(9) of the Delhi VAT Act, 2004, enables the authorities to raise a presumption that wherever the identity of the consignor/owner of the goods is not verifiable the goods are owned by the transporter and are held by him for sale in Delhi. It is also urged that the decision in Sant Lal (supra) is no longer good law in view of later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the opinion that the direction to pre-deposit any amount as a condition for the hearing of the appeal be it towards the primary tax liability or penalty, is not justified. In these circumstances, the direction to pre- deposit 40% of the tax liability and 20% of the penalty is hereby set- aside. The appeal before the Tribunal shall be heard on its merits. The appeal and pending application are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
