TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be produced together with the filing of the appeal. Both clauses (b) and (c) employ the expression an amount equal to ten per cent of the amount of tax disputed by the appellant . The entirety of the undisputed amount has to be deposited and 10 per cent of the disputed amount of tax is required to be deposited by the appellant. In the present case, the appellant disputes the entirety of the tax demand. Consequently, on the plain language of the statute, 10 per cent of the entire disputed tax liability would have to be deposited in pursuance of Section 26(6A). The amount which has been deposited by the appellant anterior to the order of assessment cannot be excluded from consideration, in the absence of statutory language to that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. V Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sriram Sridharan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Sahil Parghi, Adv. Ms. Mounica Kasturi, Adv. Mr. Akash Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 8 November 2019 WP No. 8834 of 2018. 3. The issue, which arises in the appeal, is whether amounts which have been deposited under protes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order were, thus, in the amount of ₹ 27,98,36,344. After adjustment of the amounts paid, under protest, by the appellant, the amount held to be payable was ₹ 24,34,11,956. 6. An appeal was filed against the order of assessment, which was rejected by the appellate authority. The appellant was informed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (HQ) 1 by a letter dated 4 June 2018 that the payments which were made under protest could not be considered towards pre-deposit for the purpose of Section 26(6A). A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was instituted to challenge the letter dated 4 June 2018. 7. Arguments were heard and the petition was reserved for judgment on 14 February 2019. By a judgment de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cent of the amount of tax, disputed by the appellant so far as such tax liability pertains to tax, on grounds, other than those mentioned in clause (a), (c) in case of an appeal against an order, other than an order, described in clauses (a) and (b) above, an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the amount of tax disputed by the appellant, (d) in case of an appeal against a separate order imposing only penalty, deposit of an amount, as directed by the appellate authority, which shall not in any case, exceed 10 per cent of the amount of penalty, disputed by appellant. 9. Mr. V Sridharan, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that: (i) clauses (b) and (c) of Section 26(6A) stipulate that the appeal has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entirety of the undisputed amount has to be deposited and 10 per cent of the disputed amount of tax is required to be deposited by the appellant. In the present case, the appellant disputes the entirety of the tax demand. Consequently, on the plain language of the statute, 10 per cent of the entire disputed tax liability would have to be deposited in pursuance of Section 26(6A). The amount which has been deposited by the appellant anterior to the order of assessment cannot be excluded from consideration, in the absence of statutory language to that effect. A taxing statute must be construed strictly and literally. There is no room for intendment. If the legislature intended that the protest payment should not be set off as the deposit amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strued as they stand, adopting the plain and grammatical meaning of the words used. Consequently, the appellant was liable to pay, in terms of Section 26(6A), 10 per cent of the tax disputed together with the filing of the appeal. There is no reason why the amount which was paid under protest, should not be taken into consideration. It is common ground that if that amount is taken into account, the provisions of the statute were duly complied with. Hence, the rejection of the appeal was not in order and the appeal would have to be restored to the file of the appellate authority, subject to due verification that 10 per cent of the amount of tax disputed, as interpreted by the terms of this judgment, has been duly deposited by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
