2013 (3) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner company had already paid differential but disputed tax during the pendency of appeal under protest. The dispute arises on the issue of classification of goods manufactured by the petitioner company. The petitioner company is a well known and reputed company, thus exercise of Jurisdiction for interim protection vested in courts and Tribunals has to be balanced taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a given case. This has not been done by the Tribunal. Thus direct the Tax Board to decide the appeal of the petitioner within a period of twenty days from today & petitioner is directed to move an application before the Tax Board, for preponement of the date of hearing of the appeal pending before the Tax Board, on o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accordance with law in respect of its goods. However the department taking a different view treated the petitioner's manufactured goods as confectionery and thus pushing them as not otherwise classifiable and hence falling in the residual Entry in Schedule V of the Act of 2003 exigible to 12.5% as valorem tax. Counsel submits that the dispute in the present case is not a case of evasion of tax, but the dispute has arisen about rate of tax dependent upon the classification of goods as per the provisions of the RVAT Act. It is submitted that the petitioner company is a good cooperate citizen, and in spite of challenging the classification of its goods wrongly by the department has already paid the amount of differential tax i.e. additi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with in the exercise of this court's powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A bare look at the order dated 26-7-2012 indicates that it is non-speaking order. No reason whatsoever has been advanced by the Tax Board while refusing to exercise its discretion to protect the petitioner company from its liability (under challenge) to pay the interest in respect of demand raised by the department in spite of the fact that the petitioner company had already paid differential but disputed tax during the pendency of appeal under protest. It is quite plain that the present matter does not relate to a situation of evasion of tax having been found by the department. The dispute a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X