9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Oral Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"), under section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short "the Act"), in Appeals Nos. 51 to 53/STT/02-03, pertaining to the assessment years 1998-99 (Local and Central) and 1999-2000 (Local) respectively. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5,08,40,000 as a pre-condition for entertaining their appeals pending before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 3,21,00,000 has been directed to be deposited in cash and for the remaining amount, the petitioner is required to furnish surety. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to the present petition, are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to deposit the aforenoted amounts. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 5.. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.. Assailing the said order as unreasonable, onerous and incapable of being complied with on account of precarious financial condition of the petitioner, it is vehemently submitted by Mr. R.C. Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Tribunal has not only lost sight of the actual factual position, it has also failed to apply the settled principles governing a stay application under section 43(5) of the Act. Learned counsel would submit that while bringing to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal is very reasonable inasmuch as the petitioner has been directed to pay in cash only a sum of approximately Rs. 3 crores as against a tax demand of approximately Rs. 12 crores pertaining to the two years in question. 8.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the reasoning of the Tribunal, we are of the view that a case for total waiver of pre-deposit is not made out. The statute confers on the person aggrieved a right to appeal. But, while granting such Reported as Jagannath Dudadhar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2001] 121 STC 547. a right, the Legislature is competent to circumscribe it by imposing certain conditions. Section 43(5) of the Act provides that no appeal against an order of assessment, etc., s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under section 10(f) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. These would be the matters to be gone into by the appellate authority at the time of hearing of the appeals. It would neither be proper nor desirable for us to comment on these issues lest it may prejudice either of the parties. We may, however, note that neither the amount of any penalty nor the interest charged has been taken into account by the Tribunal in directing the aforenoted deposit. Therefore, the only question with which we are concerned is whether the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in directing the petitioner to make the deposits as aforesaid on sound legal principles, noted above, by taking into consideration all the relevant facts. 10.. Having carefully perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
