9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of predeposit. While doing so, the Tribunal however granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for restoration after making payment of Rs. 5 crores within one month from the date of the order. If so done, the Tribunal would consider such a request. 2. This litigation has a checkered history. However, we may make only a brief reference thereof. The petitioner, a dealer registered under the VAT Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act, was facing total demand of Rs. 538.84 crores (rounded off) under the VAT Act and Rs. 317.70 crores (rounded off) under the Central Sales Tax Act as confirmed by the orders of assessment. When such orders were challenged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal by an order dated 18.11.2013, set aside such assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies are quashed and set aside and directions are issued to reframe the assessment orders in light of the observations made, findings recorded and directions issued by this Tribunal and also in light of the documents produced or that may be produced by the appellant in support of its respective claims. The appellant may be given sufficient opportunities to plead and produce the relevant details which are produced before this Tribunal and after examining the same, to pass fresh order in accordance with the law, both under the Gujarat VAT Act as well as under the CST Act, for all the four years under appeals. It is, however, made clear that the appellant is required to pay back the refund availed of by the appellant, as indicated above, within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .732 of 2014. The Tribunal required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 crores, only upon which, further hearing would take place. Since the petitioner failed to do so, the Tribunal rejected the appeal by the impugned order dated 07.10.2014. After first filing a Tax Appeal before the Court and realizing that the same may not be maintainable, the petitioner filed this petition. 5. The facts on record are quite glaring. Under the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner set aside the assessments, under which, the petitioner faced tax demands worth hundreds of crores of rupees. While passing such order, the Tribunal desired that the petitioner must by way of a precondition, return the refund amount which was, primaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount. When the Tribunal has imposed a condition of predeposit of Rs. 10 crores by way of condition to hear the Tax Appeal on merits and when the Tribunal had also granted sufficient time to deposit such amounts in installments, in facts of the present case, we see no reason to interfere. 7. We had adjourned this petition on few occasions to enable the counsel for the petitioner to take instructions and to show in what manner the petitioner can even now deposit such sum. Barring pointing out that the department has attached petitioner's shares, of which the current value comes to Rs. 5.02 crores which the department may sell, the petitioner was unable to offer any further amount by way of predeposit. 8. In the result, petition is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
