TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 lacs with the department within a period of six weeks from today and upon such deposit, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal of the appellant on its own merits - Decided partly in favor of appellant. - TAX APPEAL NO. 252 of 2016 With CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 108 of 2016 In TAX APPEAL NO. 252 of 2016 With TAX APPEAL NO. 253 of 2016 With CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 107 of 2016 In TAX APPEAL NO. 253 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : Mr. Hardik Vora, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI) 1. The present Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iers were registered dealers under the provisions of VAT Act and are having bank accounts in the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the appellant that for the year 2011-12, the appellant filed its return under the provisions of VAT claiming income tax credit amount to the tune of ₹ 1.75 crores (rounded off) for VAT on the goods sold by the above parties. It is the case of the appellant that the work pursuant to which project initiated, commissioned and completed and Solar power plant was commissioned on 4.3.2012. Even performance certificate also came to be issued by the company on 25.6.2012 and upon completion of the project in the month of March, 2012, the appellant closed down its branch office at Surat. The appellant has stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t vide order dated 26.3.2015 raised the aforesaid demand of ₹ 4,11,94,685/- by rejecting the ITC claimed by the appellant amounting to ₹ 1,75,12,530/-. The Assessing Officer also issued notice for the amount assessed and after giving credit of the amount of ₹ 25 lacs, which was paid under protest, the total demand was raised to ₹ 3,86,94,685/-. 3. The appellant company feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid demand raised preferred an appeal before Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax and Appellant Authority, Surat. The Deputy Commissioner however, vide order dated 16.7.2015 rejected the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled pre-deposit condition. 4. The appellant feeling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to deposit the amount as ordered. However, it was requested that since amount of ₹ 25 lacs under protest was deposited in the background of facts to be considered so that the appeal can be dealt with on merits. It was also contended by the learned counsel that ample material was shown and placed on record as ordered by the learned Tribunal to justify that the transactions which took place appear to be genuine transactions and dealings of the appellant were with registered dealers. A grievance was also raised before the Tribunal that some of the statements of vendors have been relied upon for the first time before the Tribunal which the appellant company had no access. It was also contended by Mr. Karia that to arrive at a conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
