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 →

M/s PARINI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND 2

2016 (4) TMI 274 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre-deposit - Total liability of the petitioner under the assessment order exceeds ₹ 4,00,00,000/- against which Tribunal, by the order dated 18.9.2015, had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- under the GVAT Act and ₹ 1,00,000/- under the CST Act by way of pre-deposit as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeals -

Held that:- Sub-section (4) of section 73 of the GVAT Act provides that no appeal against an order of assessm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, inter alia, without payment of tax with penalty (if any) or, as the case may be, of penalty. Thus, no dealer can demand as a matter of right that his appeal should be heard without payment of tax or penalty and it is for such dealer to satisfy the Tribunal that a case has been made out for total exemption from payment of tax with penalty. However, the Tribunal, while considering an application for waiver of tax and penalty for the purpose of he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 2016 - Dated:- 31-3-2016 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR AR GUPTA, ADVOCATE, ADITYA A GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.9.2015 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), whereby the Tribunal has direct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed in the petition that it is engaged in the business of dealing with tax free goods covered by Schedule I of the GVAT Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 29.3.2014 with respect to the assessment period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 raising a total demand of ₹ 3,57,12,395/-, including interest and penalty under the provisions of the GVAT Act and also raised a demand of ₹ 58,20,230/-, including interest and penalty for the assessment per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

before the stipulated date, viz., 20.1.2015, by an order dated 12.3.2015, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Tribunal being Second Appeals No.424 and 425 of 2015, together with stay applications. 2.1 By an order dated 8.7.2015, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to produce all necessary evidences in respect of its contention regarding tax free turnover under the GVAT Act. The Tribunal also directed the petitioner to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uced before the lower authorities as the Bank of India has attached the premises and no one was permitted to enter the said premises. It is the case of the petitioner that it had clearly stated the reasons for not producing the documents in the affidavit, but the Tribunal, without considering the true purport of the affidavit, vide impugned order dated 18.9.2015, held that there was no ground to interfere with the order of pre-deposit of ₹ 10,00,000/- under the GVAT Act. It, however, reduc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issed the appeal on account of noncompliance of the order of pre-deposit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned order by submitting that insofar as the order dated 18.9.2015 is concerned, the same suffers from lack of application of mind on the part of the Tribunal, inasmuch as, though the Tribunal has referred to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has not taken into consideration the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to pay any tax under the GVAT Act or CST Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in upholding the order passed by the first appellate authority and directing the petitioner to deposit ₹ 10,00,000/- under the GVAT Act. It was submitted that the petitioner being in dire financial constraints is not in a position to deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal, and that the matter is required to be restored to the Tribunal for reconsidering the question of pre-deposit afresh, after gi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

10,00,000/- under the GVAT Act and ₹ 1,00,000/- under the CST Act by way of pre-deposit as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeals. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had slightly modified the order of the first appellate authority by reducing the amount payable under the CST Act to ₹ 1,00,000/- instead of ₹ 2,00,000/-. The record of the case reveals that the tax liability of the petitioner has been assessed at ₹ 3,57,12,395/- under the GVAT Act and ₹ 58 .....

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