2019 (4) TMI 1916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rma, S. Sukumaran, Anand Sukumar and Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate, G. Prakash, AOR, Jishnu M.L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Been Prakash, Maruf Khan, Kamran Malik and Praveen Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER This application is filed by the appellant/applicant for issuing appropriate directions in reference to the amount depos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8-4-2011 reads thus : "11. So far as the amount of Rs. 13,19,11,404/- (Rupees thirteen crores nineteen lakhs eleven thousand four hundred and four only which was deposited by MRF in terms of order of this Court dated 27-1-2009 in SLP (C) No. 909 of 2009 is concerned, the said amount shall continue to remain with the Department as deposit till the matter is finally decided by the High Court. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 27-1-2009, in our opinion, the applicant was directed to pay the amount equivalent to tax payable but that was to be treated as "deposit" with the Department and not payment (of tax dues). The expression used 'will be treated as deposit not payment'; is quite significant. That position is restated in the final order passed by this Court on 28-4-2011. 6. The stand of the Department that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X