TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner’s Second Appeals namely Second Appeals Nos. 891 of 2013 and 892 of 2013, in view of the fact that the withdrawal was only prompted as it was so required. In order to get the benefit of the Scheme, the Appeals had to be withdrawn. Once the benefit was such a scheme was not extended, the withdrawal was rendered of no use. Appeals therefore needed to be restored and heard on merits - The petition is disposed of with the direction that Second Appeals No.891/2013 and 892/2013 after being so restored shall be decided on merits. The order of the Tribunal refusing restoration / revival of appeals deserves to be quashed and set aside. - Special Civil Application No. 14970 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , an assessee who wanted to avail the benefit of such Scheme needed to withdraw any appeals pending before the Competent Authorities. Accordingly, an application for seeking the benefit of the Scheme was filed by the petitioner on 27.09.2016 with an undertaking that pending appeals would be withdrawn. 5 In accordance with the undertaking so given on 27.09.2016, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal on 28.09.2016 to withdraw the Second Appeals in order to avail the benefit of the scheme. The contents of the application so filed, read as under: The appellant most humbly submits that, they had filed SA No. 891892/ 2013 before your honour. Now the Government has launched the Vasula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the CTO(5) Patan has informed the applicant as per Annexure E on page 14 of this paper book, to pay ₹ 11,20,740/which interalia includes tax amount of ₹ 4,01,575/Interest ₹ 5,68,574/and 25% penalty 150591/The Officer seems to have calculated the payable amount, considering that the applicant is involved in tax evasion. 8 The appellant applied for Amnesty Scheme under honest belief to get the benefit of the scheme. In view of the facts, it is requested to restore the SA No. 891/892 of 2014. The applicant wanted to withdraw the second appeals exclusively to get the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2016. Now when the Government is not prepared to give the benefit of the scheme to the applicant, the appellant may be pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the appellant of Second Appeal no. 104 of 2011. 10 Ms Niyati Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the appeals were withdrawn only with a view to seek benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2016. In view of the order of the Commercial Tax OfficerV, dated 21.03.2017, under which the petitioner was called upon to pay the tax amount with interest and penalty, failing which the benefit of the Scheme would not be extended, the petitioner applied to the Tribunal for restoration of the appeals. According to the petitioner, since the government was not prepared to give the benefit of the Scheme, the petitioner applied to the Tribunal for restoration of the appeals so that the same could be argued on merits. Ms Shah, further poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of the amnesty Scheme is not granted to such appellant. C) The Tribunal in exercise of its discretion ought to have permitted revival of the petitioner s Second Appeals namely Second Appeals Nos. 891 of 2013 and 892 of 2013, in view of the fact that the withdrawal was only prompted as it was so required. In order to get the benefit of the Scheme, the Appeals had to be withdrawn. Once the benefit was such a scheme was not extended, the withdrawal was rendered of no use. Appeals therefore needed to be restored and heard on merits. In our opinion merelybecause the orders permitting withdrawal of appeals did not contain an observation of liberty to revive would not disentitle the petitioner of the same benefit of revival of theAppeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
