TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted position is that no hearing was held thereafter. While learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the adjudicating authority waited for one month thereafter, the fact that the adjudicating authority waited for one month before issuing orders does not mean that the final hearing took place after 30.06.2019. Hence, the conclusion that the petitioner's case falls within the category arrears and not within the category litigation contains no infirmity. The other aspect on which the order was challenged was non-consideration of interest. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, sub-section 2 of Section 124 uses the expression any amount paid as pre-deposit . This provision was interpreted by this Court in M/S. VAMSEE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the petitioner, the first respondent failed to recognize the payment of interest to the extent of Rs. 11,41,343/- while computing the amount pre-deposited by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-2. In addition, the petitioner contends that the categorization of the petitioner's application as arrears was incorrect because the final hearing of the original adjudication took place after 30.06.2019. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 9 of the order-in-original dated 09.07.2019, and pointed out that it is recorded therein that the hearing was not concluded until after a month beyond 31.05.2019. If the said one month is taken into c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned senior standing counsel submits that the petitioner was provided a personal hearing and did not place before the first respondent evidence of payment of interest. Therefore, he submits that the pre-deposit amount was specified as Rs. 34,47,959/- and tax liability was computed on that basis. 5. The order in original dated 09.07.2019 is on record. Paragraph 9 thereof records expressly that the final hearing took place on 31.05.2019. The admitted position is that no hearing was held thereafter. While learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the adjudicating authority waited for one month thereafter, the fact that the adjudicating authority waited for one month before issuing orders does not mean that the final hearing took place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
