TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id well before the cancellation of the agreement and the second instalment has been paid on 13.04.2007 well before the pre-emptive date viz., 22.09.2008, had the deferral agreement been in force - the interest payable by the petitioner shall be only from the date of cancellation of the agreement viz., 24.01.2007 till the date of payment viz., 13.04.2007. The matter is remanded to the 1st respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt to make an elaborate exercise to test the correctness of the impugned order, as the following facts alone would be relevant for disposal of the writ petition and to determine as to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. 4.The petitioner availed deferral to an extent of ₹ 28.67 lakhs and on account of the violation of the conditions of the agreement, the same was cancelled by the 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently, another revised notice was issued on 15.02.2010. This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.8265 of 2010 and the Court recorded the submission on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's objection would be considered and disposed of the writ petition, by order dated 07.06.2010, by directing the petitioner to file objection with a direction to consider the same. As per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Special Tribunal, the Commissioner permitted payment of the sale tax dues in instalments which is not the case in respect of the petitioner. 6.In my considered view, the observation made by the 1st respondent is incorrect as the 1st respondent should have taken note of the legal principle laid down by the Tribunal which order has become final as the Revenue has not challenged the order by fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
