9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the State and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is disposed of at this stage finally under second proviso to rule 2 of chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2.. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of pipes. The petitioner is a registered company both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, in short called "the Act" as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment orders for the year 1997-98 for U.P. as well for Central were passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax on March 30, 2000, against which the petitioner filed an appeal under section 9 of the Act before the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as some delay in depositing the balance amount of Rs. 1,82,000. Since the stay order was operating till March 25, 2002 and the judgment was delivered by this Court on March 21, 2002 hence according to the petitioner he filed an application along with affidavit before respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay in furnishing the security bond to condone the delay in depositing the tax. The Tribunal by its order dated June 28, 2002 has dismissed the application only on the ground that since the security bond was not furnished within 30 days and there was no provision for extending the period for furnishing the security bond, therefore, condonation application was not accepted. 5.. A division Bench of this Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not remain in force for more than thirty days unless the appellant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority concerned for the payment of the outstanding amount." 8.. In the case of Gramodaya Ashram, Ghazipur v. State of U.P. reported in 1996 UPTC 897 it was held that the delay in depositing 5 per cent of the tax in cash, when 95 per cent of the disputed tax was stayed, should have been condoned and there was no justification for initiating the recovery proceedings, even if the security furnished was not sufficient or was defective. 9.. In 2000 UPTC 396 (Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Commissioner of Trade Tax) it was held that while considering the waiver cum stay application the revenue authorities or the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
