Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 750 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 750 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Restoration of appeal - pre-deposit to hear the appeal - refund of amount by petitioner - 31.78 crores after giving credit to the tax amounts already deposited by the petitioner - Held that: - There may be some minor adjustment or a computation error in the authority arriving at such a figure. Nevertheless, it would not be possible to undertake entire assessment exercise to arrive at a figure with mathematical precession, nor would it be necessary. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ived the refund based on such fake invoices and input tax credit. Fresh assessment may proceed. The same however cannot be by allowing the petitioner to retain the refund amount. When the Tribunal has imposed a condition of predeposit of ₹ 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 - We had adjourned this petition on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : MR VISHAL K SEVAK, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR.HARDIK VORA, AGP ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in Second Appeal No.732 of 2014. Under the said order, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the petitioner for being unable to deposit a sum of ₹ 10 crores by way of predeposit. While doing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 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 assessment orders and instead ordered fresh assessments. The Tribunal however was not willing to do so unconditionally. This was on account of the fact that as per the Tribunal, the petitioner had received a total refund of ₹ 39.55 crores (rounded off). Such refund, prima .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

per the department, the petitioner had recorded all these purchases in the books of accounts and had claimed refund in the returns and also obtained sizable refund from the authorities on the basis of such allegedly fake invoices. The refund was received by the petitioner and not by the employees. Primarily on this count, the Tribunal while ordering fresh assessment in the interest of justice, desired that the petitioner should be made to surrender the refund claimed on the basis of fake invoic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upport 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 the period of three .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner to pay back the refund availed within three months from the date of the order. It was clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply with such directions of repayment of refund as may be indicated by the Sales Tax department, the said order dated 18.11.2013 shall stand automatically revoked. 4. Pursuant to such order, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, passed an order dated 04.06.2014, in which, he calculated the gross amount of ref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2014. The Tribunal required the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹ 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

epted the condition imposed by the Tribunal. It was thereafter only a question of a computation of what amount the petitioner must refund by way of an adhoc arrangement. The competent authority arrived at a figure of 31.78 crores after giving credit to the tax amounts already deposited by the petitioner. 6. There may be some minor adjustment or a computation error in the authority arriving at such a figure. Nevertheless, it would not be possible to undertake entire assessment exercise to arrive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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