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

2016 (12) TMI 1107 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (12) TMI 1107 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Demand - Interest - Penalty - Held that: - the petitioner has agreed to deposit entire amount of ₹ 83,49,189/being benefit availed by the petitioner under VKGUY Scheme from the date of “Spices” was deleted / removed from VKGUY Scheme and considering the fact that during the pendnecy of the present petition, in which, initially, petitioner challenged action of the respondent in putting the petitioner in the DEL, the final order has been passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2016, SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17503, 17513 of 2016 - Dated:- 22-11-2016 - M. R. Shah And B. N. Karia, JJ. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, LD. D K Trivedi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr Devang Vyas, Advocate for the Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah ) 1.0 As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and are with respect to common petitioner, all these petitions are heard, decided and disposed of together. 2.0. That the common petitioner is engaged in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tted position that once the Spices came to be deleted / withdrawn from the aforesaid VKGUY Scheme the petitioner could not have availed the benefit under the said Scheme of ₹ 83,49,189/under different scripts. On the basis of the objection raised by the audit team, the petitioner was served with the 11 different show cause notices demanding the return / refund of ₹ 83,49,189/+ applicable interest from the date of issue of VKGUY duty credit script. The representative of the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tted that as there was no crystal demand against the petitioner and the respondent had issued the show cause notices for recovery of the alleged excess payment, till any final decision is taken on the show cause notices, the petitioner could not have been treated as person in default. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the Division Bench vide order dated 19.10.2016 issued the notice / notices in the present petitions making it returnable on 17.11.2016. In the meantime, the first authority - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n exercise of powers under Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. By way of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged the said order dated 7.11.2016 by submitting that when the petitioner was before this Court and the this Court was seized with the matter and therefore, there was no proper representation by the petitioner before the authority. 4.0. Today, when the present petitions are taken up for further hearing, Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom August 2010 onwards and they availed the benefit by mistake as in fact they were not aware of the fact that the Spices came to be deleted / withdrawn from the aforesaid Scheme. It is submitted that even subsequently in the year 2011-12 even the licenses were issued in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, this is not a case for imposing fiscal penalty. It is submitted on non deposit of ₹ 83,49,189/+ applicable interest, the petitioner is put in the denial entity lis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

so requested that on such deposit the liberty be reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit an appropriate application before the appropriate authority to withdraw the name of the petitioner from DEL . 5.0. Shri Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent authority has stated at the bar under the instructions from the concerned officer who is present in the Court that if the petitioner unconditionally deposits ₹ 83,49,189/and on such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

name of the petitioner from the DEL. 6.0. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the above broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties recorded herein above and considering the fact that the petitioner has agreed to deposit entire amount of ₹ 83,49,189/being benefit availed by the petitioner under VKGUY Scheme from the date of Spices was deleted / removed from VKGUY Scheme and considering the fact that during the pendnecy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mon order dated 07.11.2016 is set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity to make suitable submission before the authority with respect to the interest on the aforesaid amount and fiscal penalty and to request the appropriate authority to remove the name of the petitioner from DEL. 7.0. In view of the above, it is directed that on deposit of entire amount of ₹ 83,49,189/with the appropriate authority which shall be deposited unconditionally as agreed by the learned counsel for 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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