Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPORATION LTD. Versus C.C.E.,C. & S.T., COCHIN

2015 (8) TMI 502 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre deposit - Mandatory pre deposit - whether the petitioner would have to deposit the amount of 7.5% of the tax confirmed against him, as a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy before the Tribunal - Held that:- petitioner, in whose case also the lis commenced in 2013, would not be required to deposit the amount of 7.5%, as required pursuant to the 2014 amendment, and in that respect, he would have an efficacious alternate remedy before the Tribunal where he can file an appeal, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

). No. 10068 of 2015 (G) - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. Shri Ramesh Cherian John, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil and Ranjith J. Koshy, SC s, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext. P6 order passed by the respondent confirming a demand of Service Tax and penalty on the petitioner. Although various contentions are raised against Ext. P6 order in the writ petition, I am of the view that against Ext. P6 order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Appellate Tribunal. It is citing this requirement, and contending that he does not have an efficacious alternate remedy, that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, against Ext. P6 order the petitioner has got an effective .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmenced prior to the introduction of the amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, with effect from August 2014, the petitioner s right of appeal as per the erstwhile provisions of law would not be affected by the provisions introduced by the amendment of 2014. Although not expressly referred to in the interim order dated 19-2-2015 passed by the High Court of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 3393/2015, the view seems to be consistent with the settled law that the institution of a suit carrie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndia) Ltd v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. (AIR 1953 S.C. 221; = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1277 (S.C.) Vitthalbhai Naranbhai Patel v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M P, Nagpur (AIR 1967 S.C. 344) and Ramesh Singh and Another v. Cinta Devi and Others (1996 (3) SCC 142). In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner, in whose case also the lis commenced in 2013, would not be required to deposit the amount of 7.5%, as required pursuant to the 2014 amendment, and in that respect, he would hav .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version