TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of tax - petitioner's case is that it is never their intention not to pay the tax, but due to unexpected contingency and stringent financial crisis, they were unable to pay the tax - Held that: - there is no provision under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, to permit the dealer to remit tax in installments. If that be so, the Court would not be justified in granting such indulgence. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsent on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the demand notice issued by the second respondent, demanding a sum of ₹ 1,17,97,795/-, being the Value Added Tax (VAT) payable by the petitioner for the months of September 2017 and October 2017. 3. The petitioner's case is that, it is never their intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be justified in granting such indulgence. However, this will not preclude the second respondent from considering the bona fidies of the dealer/petitioner, and make necessary accommodation. This is, with a view to ensure that the tax is collected from the defaulting dealer at the earliest. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already remitted a ₹ 1,00,04,645/-, the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
