TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as raised before us before the Appellate Forum. In such view of the matter the petitioner is relegated to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 57 of the VAT Act 2008. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. - Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice And Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. For the Petitioner : Ram M. Kaushik,Gaurav Gulati,Rishabh Raj For the Respondent : C.S.C ORDER 1. Heard Shri Ram M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was issued notice under Section 34 (8) of the Act to show cause why penalty towards delay in depositing tax be imposed upon the petitioner as the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 23,84,854/- on 28.04.2015 without interest whereas the amount was required to be deposited on 20.04.2015. Another deposit of Rs. 28,08,474/- was got deposited after deduction of TDS on 26.05.2015 which was required to be deposited on 20.04.2015. The petitioner filed detailed reply and the notice under Section 34 (8) was withdrawn recording the fact that the petitioner was liable to be proceeded with under Section 54 10 (a) of the Act. Thereafter, an ex-parte order dated 06.01.2021 was passed imposing penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commercial Tax, reported in 2018:AHC:1996 25 . 5. Learned Standing Counsel in opposition to the writ petition submits that the impugned orders are just and proper and warrant no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly in view of the fact that the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 under Section 34 (8) of the VAT Act, 2008 is Appealable under Section 57 of the Act. The arguments being raised by the petitioner before this Court was raised before the respondent no. 4 which have been suitably dealt with by the respondent no. 4. It is accordingly submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and warrants rejection at the threshold. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
