Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PERFECTTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT LTD

2016 (1) TMI 379 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre deposit - Reduction of the amount of bank guarantee requirement to 20% of tax demand - Held that:- As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the learned Government Representative has not objected to the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent for directing the first appellate authority to decide the appeal in view of the deposit of 5% of the tax demand and furnishing of bank guarantee for 20% of the tax demand. Therefore, the Tribunal does not ap .....

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 Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity giving rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise. - Decided against Revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO.717 of 2015 - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A.G.URAIZEE, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR THE OPPONENT : MR UCHIT N SHETH, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal under section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in reducing the amount of bank guarantee requirement to 20% of tax demand? [3] Any other substantial questions of law as may be deemed fit by the Hon ble High Court may kindly be framed. 2. The facts stated briefly are that an assessment order dated 1st October, 2014 came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax in the case of the respondent assessee for financial year 2010-11 raising a total demand of ₹ 13,01,96,493/- under the pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal being First Appeal No.21 of 2014. 3. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before the Tribunal on 11th December, 2014, the Tribunal directed the respondent to pay 5% of tax demand which came to about ₹ 13,84,000/- and to furnish bank guarantee of 20% of the tax demand within two weeks from the date of the order. It was further observed that upon payment of 5% of the tax demand, that is ₹ 13,84,000/-, the attachment of the bank a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction for furnishing bank guarantee and requested that the appeal be disposed of with a direction to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits and till he decides the appeal, the stay granted by the Tribunal may be continued. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Government Representative stated that he had no objection if such order is passed. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 27th November, 2014 of the Joint Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e till the final disposal of the first appeal. It was further observed that the Joint Commissioner shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant assailed the impugned order by submitting that the first appellate authority had, after duly considering the merits of the case, dir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he amount of pre-deposit. It was, accordingly urged that the appeal does give rise to questions of law, as proposed or as may be deemed fit by this court. 7. 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 or otherwise. As regards the su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version