TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the request made by them in their application dated 03.11.2014 to permit them to approach the Settlement Commissioner could have been considered by the respondent. As he did not do so, this court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had also paid the tax liability alongwith interest as mentioned above, is of the view that this is a fit case to find out whether they should be allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 78 of the Finance Act on the ground that the petitioner, before passing of the impugned order dated 20.11.2014, has moved a petition dated 03.11.2014 admitting the liability of the petitioner to pay entire tax liability alongwith the interest on the premise that the they would be allowed to go before the Settlement Commissioner to settle the matter in accordance with law and hence the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a fit case where the respondent ought to have allowed the request made on 03.11.2014 to approach Settlement Commissioner. As he did not do so and passed the impugned order, the petitioner company is constrained to approach this court. 3. Concluding his argument, he further submitted that if the order in question is set aside and the matter is allowed to be settled by the Settlement Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o so, this court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had also paid the tax liability alongwith interest as mentioned above, is of the view that this is a fit case to find out whether they should be allowed to settle and redress his grievance before the Settlement Commissioner. 6. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is given two weeks time to approach this Sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
