9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Second Appeal No.291 of 2020 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, on the ground of non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit dated 02nd March, 2023. 3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the appellant. 4. In this Appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised by the appellant. "(i) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in confirming the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 96,88,278/- quantified by the lower authority. (i)(a) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, predeposit amount at the rate of 20% of the tax amount confirmed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was just, fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get entire amount of input tax credit under Section 11 on the ground that there was mismatch in the amount of input tax credit as per Form 201A filed by a vendor. (v) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that merely because the vendor dealer has failed to pay the necessary taxes into the Government Treasury, the amount of tax can be recovered from the purchasing dealer more so when the same was valid and subsisting when the transaction took place. (vi) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the order of Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal is perverse in as much as: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowance of Input Tax Credit in relation to M/s. H.L. Enterprise whose registration number was cancelled ab initio by the department and one Staline Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. whose credit was mismatched. It was submitted that the appellant was never put to any notice about such facts during the course of assessment proceedings and in view of the same, addition made in the assessment order are not sustainable on merits. 5.1 It was submitted that financial condition of the appellant is not good. It was submitted that the pre-deposit amount determined by the Tribunal of Rs.96,88,278/- which is equal to 20% of the tax demanded of Rs.04,84,41,389/- would not be paid by the appellant. 5.2 It was submitted that the appellant has very good prima fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
