9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 849 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - requirement to deposit 50% of the disputed tax liability - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on an order passed by coordinate bench of this Court in M/S N.G. ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS 2023 (12) TMI 992 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . It was in favour of the same petitioners, as in the present petition, but for different assessment year, where it was held that The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the disputed tax liability in addition to the earlier deposit before the assessing authority (which is 10% of the disputed tax amount). Subject to the aforesaid deposit, the recovery proceedings of the balance amount shall remain stayed till the decision of this writ petition. The view taken by the coordinate bench is agreed upon, and accordingly, similar direction is issued in the present case - It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit 20 per cent of the disputed tax liability in addition to the earlier deposit before the assessing authority (which is 10% of the disputed tax liability) - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of disputed tax liability and the requirement for depositing a percentage of the disputed amount before the assessing authority to stay recovery proceedings. Disputed Tax Liability: The petitioner relied on a previous order in their favor for a different assessment year, where it was directed to deposit a percentage of the disputed tax liability. The court, in line with a coordinate bench, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax liability in addition to the earlier deposit of 10% before the assessing authority. Recovery proceedings for the balance amount were to remain stayed until the finalization of the writ petition. Direction to Respondents: The court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within four weeks and allowed two weeks for a rejoinder affidavit. The case was tagged and listed with other related cases for a future date. The petitioner was specifically instructed to make the additional deposit within four weeks, failing which recovery proceedings would continue.
|
