Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (1) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tting aside of the assessment order cannot be granted to the petitioner at this stage. - Decided against the assessee. Release of the bank guarantee - Held that:- once the assessment order is set aside by the Appellate Authority, the security relating to the demand comes to an end. Once the assessment order is set aside, there is no requirement for the assessee to continue to furnish security or in the instant case, the bank guarantee. - In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned notice dated 15.12.2015 directing the petitioner to extend the bank guarantee can not be sustained and is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to get its bank guarantee released. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Writ Tax No. – 28 to 34 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal alongwith a stay application, which was allowed in part and the Tribunal stayed the disputed tax to the extent of 60% till the disposal of the appeal. As a result of the interim order granted by the tribunal, the petitioner deposited 40% of the disputed tax in cash but was still required to furnish security for the balance 60% as per Section 10 (1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which the petitioner furnished by way of a bank guarantee as it had no immovable property in the State of U.P. This bank guarantee was accepted by the Assessing Authority to the extent of 60% of the disputed tax. Eventually, the appeal was allowed on merits and the assessment order was set aside by an order of the Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... titioner to renew the bank guarantee, failing which they would encash the bank guarantee and credit the account of the Commercial Tax Department. The petitioner contends that he was left with no choice but to renew the bank guarantee and accordingly renewed the bank guarantee for a period of one month, i.e., till 31st of January, 2016 and thereafter, has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the notice dated 15.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad with regard to the renewal of the bank guarantee. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the State Bank of India restraining them from renewing the bank guarantee. The petitioner has further prayed that the amount of disputed tax deposite .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... we are of the opinion that the matter relating to refund of the tax deposited is squarely covered by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Lucent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We also find that it is not necessary for this Court to refer the matter again to a Larger Bench as the decision of the Division Bench in M/S Reva Enviro Systems (P) Limited, Bareilly (supra) did not notice the decision of the earlier Division Bench in M/S Indodan Milk Products Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. And Another, 1983 U.P.T.C. 583, which decision was noticed and affirmed by the Full Bench in Lucent Technologies Pvt. Ltd (supra). The Full Bench has also taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. M/S Hind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irty days unless the appellant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority concerned for the payment of the outstanding amount. A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that where the Tribunal has stayed the recovery of any tax, such stay order of the Tribunal could not remain in force for more than 30 days unless the assessee furnishes adequate security of the balance amount to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority . In the instant case, the Tribunal had stayed 60% of the outstanding amount and accordingly, the petitioner deposited 40% in cash and was required to furnish security of the balance 60%, if it wanted the stay order to continue beyond 30 days. Since the petitioner has no immova .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates