9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as "the Tribunal") in Second Appeal No.56 of 2014, by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal erred in granting stay against recovery till the disposal of appeal by the first appellate authority?" 2. The facts stated briefly are that an assessment order came to be passed in the case of the assessee for the financial year 2008-2009 on 30th June, 2012 raising a demand of Rs. 97,66,998/-. The respondent - assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Appeal-4, Vadodara, who directed the respondent to make predeposit of 10% of the total demand. Since the pre-deposit, as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, was not made, the appeal came to be dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of the Deputy Commissioner upon pre-deposit of only Rs. 20,00,000/-. It was submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has not come to any conclusion that the respondent - assessee had made out any case of financial hardship so as to warrant reduction in the amount of pre-deposit. It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal does give rise to a question of law, as proposed or as may be deemed fit by this court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and that there is no warrant for interference by this court as the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law, as proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal viz., that its earlier decision in the case of M/s Vardan Petrochemical (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat would be applicable in the facts of the present case, that the Tribunal has thought it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of deciding the same on merits. 7. It is well settled that the powers to direct payment of pre- deposit are discretionary powers and such discretion is required to be exercised by the concerned authority in a reasonable manner. Having regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal whereby, it has recorded a prima facie view in favour of the assessee, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by it in refusing the amount of pre-deposit is, in any manner, unr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
