TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner in order to run the business should be able to make the payment of loan, as per detail given in balance sheet (P-6) at page No. 51 of the paper book - In order to avoid cancellation of its GST registration, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No. 3 to entertain the appeal of the petitioner on merits without insisting upon the condition of pre-deposit under Section 62 (5) of the Act 2005. Petitioner is ready to pre-deposit 10% of the amount, as observed in the order dated 25.6.2018. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in huge debt and the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit 10% as pre-deposit instead of 25% of the total demand before the Appellate Authority, this Court by exercising the inherent powers as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by considering the financial hardship faced by the petitioner, this petition is being disposed of by directing the petitioner (s) to file an appeal and respondent-authorities is directed to entertain the appeal and decide in accordance with law on merits. Petition disposed off. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases was allowed. However, the ITC claimed by the petitioner on the purchases made from below mentioned firms could not be verified hence the ITC claimed by the Petitioner was disallowed amounting to Rs. 51,05,411/- on proportionate basis. However, penalty and interest was not imposed on the petitioner and the penalty and interest proceedings were kept in abeyance. (i) M/s Guru Kirpa - Rs. 13,49,282/- (ii) M/s Balaji Sales Corp. - Rs. 71,031/- (iii) M/s Shri Ganesh Traders - Rs. 19,85,842/- (iv) M/s Metplast - Rs. 4,10,596/- (v) M/s Chinmastika Enterprises- Rs. 12,88,660/- 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.6.2018, the Petitioner filed Appeal No. 117/2019-20/Ldh before Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana (Respondent no. 3) and respondent no. 3 ordered the Petitioner to deposit 15% of the total demand for fulfilling the requirement of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act. However, due to poor financial condition, the Petitioner was not able to deposit 15%, therefore the appeal was rejected, vide order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-2). 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2019 Annexure P-2, the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab and others, passed in CWP No. 33146-2019, decided on 28.11.2019. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd s case (supra) as in the present case as well, during the financial year 2018-19, the petitioner was under heavy debts and was unable to pay the same due to prevalent market scenario. The total outstanding loans against the petitioner as on 31.003.2019 was 855.82 crores (Long Term and Short Term). Further from 29.06.2018 onwards, the petitioner is payment installments as per para No. 16 of the writ petition and running the business. The entire surplus is used for payment the installment of loan, salaries of employees and working requirements. The petitioner is financially not in a position to pay the pre-deposit of 25%. Copy of the balance sheet for the financial year 2021-21 is attached as Annexure P-6. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to reply filed by way of affidavit of Jagdeep Saigal, Asstt. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-I, Punjab wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is not facing financial difficulties. Reference has been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 574 was in the backdrop of what this Court considered to be meagre rate of the annual land-tax payable. The decision in Shyam Kishore (1993) 1 SCC 22 attempted to find a solution and provide some succour in cases involving extreme hardship but was well aware of the limitation. Same awareness was expressed in P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720 and in Har Devi Asnani (2011) 14 SCC 160 and it was stated that in cases of hardship a writ petition could be an appropriate remedy. But in the present case the High Court has gone a step further and found that the Appellate Authority would have implied power to grant such solace and for arriving at such conclusion reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Kanhi (1969) 2 SCR 65. 23. In respect of powers exercisable under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it was observed in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Another (1981) 1 SCC 500, Now it is well settled that the inherent power of the Court cannot be rosed for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The principle was followed in Simrikhia Doley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another (1990) 2 SCC 437 and in State v. K. V. Rajendran and Others (2008) 8 SCC 673. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
