TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the appellant was liable to comply with the provisions of Section 62(5) of the Act. Since the appellant failed to deposit 25% amount of the additional demand of the tax as required under the law, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on that account. The appellant was required to pre-deposit 25% amount of the additional demand of tax liability only as directed by the DETC(A) and the Tribunal as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal, which was reasonable and justified - appeal rightly dismissed. - VATAP-102-2018 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 23-4-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate ORDER AJAY K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant procured the paddy from the farmers and give the same to the rice millers for milling. As per the agreement entered between the appellant and the rice miller, out of the total paddy, 67% of the shelled rice was to be supplied back to the appellant. The bye products, i.e., rice husk, rice bran, broken rice etc. were to be retained by the rice miller. The appellant filed all its quarterly returns as well as Annual return for the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Authority vide order dated 31.8.2015 (Annexure A-1) framed the assessment raising a demand of ₹ 77,63,681/- on account of reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) accrued on the bye products shelled out of the paddy during milling by the rice miller retained by it inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 7. For the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Authority vide order dated 31.8.2015 (Annexure A-1) raised a demand of ₹ 77,63,681/- along with interest and penalty. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal before the DETC(A). The assessee also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit as required under Section 62(5) of the Act. However, the DETC(A) directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the additional demand of tax only. The assessee having failed to comply with the said direction, the appeal against the said assessment order was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. The Tribunal while dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
