9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been dismissed on merits but has only been dismissed on account of default in not making the deposit of the amount of ₹ 25 lacs. It is apparent that even while dismissing the writ petition, this Court had enlarged the time for making deposit at the request made on behalf of the petitioner-applicant and granted four weeks' further time. Obviously, the anxiety of the Court was to ensure consideration of the appeal on merits upon the petitioner-applicant making the deposit - interest of justice shall be served if the applicant is put to the condition of depositing the entire principal amount towards the tax liability under the order impugned - Conditional stay granted. - D.B. WRIT MISC. APPLICATION NOS. 169 & 212 OF 2013 - - - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 15.03.2013. Then, on 10.04.2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply one set of paper book to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and the matter was adjourned. Then, on 22.04.2013, and again on 06.05.2013, time was taken on behalf of the respondents for filing reply. Thereafter, on 22.05.2013 , it was given out on behalf of the respondents that the reply was being filed that day. Taking note of the submissions so made, the matter was posted in the month of July, 2013 while giving liberty to the applicant to file rejoinder in the meantime. Thereafter, on 22.07.2013, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties found no merit in the writ petition and proceeded to dismiss the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces, no interference should be made by this Court in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Assessing Officer has passed an order against the petitioner directing him to deposit service tax of Rs. 41,64,840/- along with interest and also the penalty. Being aggrieved with the order in original, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with stay petition. The Appellate Authority disposed of the stay petition as mentioned above vide order dated 11th February, 2013. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. From the impugned order, it appears that there is a demand of service tax against the petitioner of Rs. 41,64,840/-. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant filed the first Miscellaneous Application (No. 169/2013) on 01.08.2013 pointing out that at the time of passing of the order on 22.07.2013, it was not in the knowledge of the applicant nor was it informed on behalf of the respondents that the appeal of the applicant with the Commissioner (Appeals) had purportedly been dismissed on 07.06.2013, i.e., even before passing of the order by this Court. According to the applicant, this fact came to its notice only when the Superintendent, Central Excise visited the premises on 26.07.2013 and served the said order dated 07.06.2013. 5. The applicant has submitted that the rejection of appeal was not warranted in this matter and had the said order been served upon it, appropriate submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al on merits rather than to shunt the applicant out for some part of delay attributable to it and some part of technicalities that may otherwise operate. 10. Going by the substance of the matter, apparent it is that the applicant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lacs pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2013 within two weeks whereafter its appeal would have been considered on merits with stay over other recovery. The applicant chose to file the writ petition seeking to question the interim order so passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the said writ petition, notices were ordered to be issued and ultimately, the reply was filed on 22.05.2013 and the matter was adjourned to the month of July 2013. It sounds rather strange that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rections for consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority on merits upon compliance by the applicant. 13. Accordingly and in view of the above, these miscellaneous applications stand disposed of with the following directions and stipulations: (i) The petitioner-applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) on or before 10.12.2013 with the respondents against the liability arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 35/ST/JP-II/2012/ADC dated 24.02.2012; (ii) The petitioner-applicant shall further deposit an amount of Rs. 6,64,840/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Forty) on or before 31.12.2013 with the respondents against the liability arising out of the aforesaid Order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
