TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire deeper consideration at final hearing and had factored in the above while holding that the payment of ₹ 12.69 crores out of a confirmed demand of ₹ 90.82 crores was reasonable. Thus, there is no merit in the submission of the petitioners that the submission was not considered by the Tribunal leading to the impugned order being bad in law. Financial hardship to make pre-deposit - Held that:- The appellant had already deposited an amount of ₹ 2.69 crores out of ₹ 12.69 crores as directed by the first appellate authority but was finding it impossible to pay the balance amount of ₹ 10 crores for the subject assessment year - the financial hardship urged by the petitioners is not at all considered by the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t) under the Act is recoverable from the petitioners. The first appellate authority granted a stay of the order dated 20th March, 2017 till disposal of the appeal on payment at ₹ 12.69 crores out of the aggregate amount of ₹ 90.82 crores. This on the basis that if the petitioners had paid the entry tax then it would have been entitled to set off the same while making payment of VAT on the sale of its final goods. Thus, resulting in loss to the Revenue of ₹ 12.69 crores in the aggregate i.e. ₹ 9.11 crores of tax amount plus ₹ 3.58 crores towards interest. On the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 26th September, 2018 of the Tribunal found granting stay of assessment order on payment of ₹ 12.69 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) and (b) as indicated in paragraph 4 hereinabove was not considered by the Tribunal leading to the impugned order being bad in law. 6. However, so far as submission (c) as indicated in paragraph 4 hereinabove viz. financial hardship making it impossible to deposit an amount of ₹ 12.69 crores is concerned, we note that the impugned order does record the above submission. In fact, the appellant had already deposited an amount of ₹ 2.69 crores out of ₹ 12.69 crores as directed by the first appellate authority but was finding it impossible to pay the balance amount of ₹ 10 crores for the subject assessment year. However, after recording the above submission, we find that the impugned order does not deal with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
