9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry remedy available to him under the Act and had filed an appeal as well as stay application, it is not possible for this court to come to the conclusion that the assessee had without reasonable cause failed to deposit within time allowed the tax which was due. To come to this conclusion would mean that it would render statutory remedy itself nugatory and of no use. The facts that the tribunal did not pass orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner for six months, cannot be said to be a fault attributable to the assessee. The assessee on his part had within time prescribed applied for the statutory remedy and it was statutory authority who did not pass necessary orders speedily - in order to give meaning of section 15-A (1)(e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 3-F of the Act treating the transfer of right to use on the application and imposed tax by order dated 4.7.1996. Against this imposition of tax on right to use, the revisionist filed first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Bareilly on 29.8.1996. The stay application was also filed with the appeal and an interim order was passed on 23.10.1996 staying realisation of the tax upto 80%. Thereafter the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 1.4.1997, a copy of this order was served on 3.5.1997. Second Appeal was preferred by the revisionist under section 10 of the Act on 24.7.1997. On 4.11.1997 the tribunal passed an interim order on the second appeal staying realisation of the disputed amount of tax upto 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has argued that the revisionist on his part has not made delay in filing the stay application rather it was filed within time but the appeallate authority took six months to pass orders thereon. Therefore it cannot be said that there was no reasonable cause for the assessee to have moved quicker in the matter. In reply the learned standing counsel has argued that since the facts are admitted to both sides, it is clear that for six months there was stay on the tax which had been imposed and the assessee had made delay in the payment of tax. Therefore the tribunal was justified in affirming the penalty. The question of law framed are as under: 1. Whether in view of the judgment of this Hon. Court in the case of CST vs. Mukherji son ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the Act and had filed an appeal as well as stay application, it is not possible for this court to come to the conclusion that the assessee had without reasonable cause failed to deposit within time allowed the tax which was due. To come to this conclusion would mean that it would render statutory remedy itself nugatory and of no use. The facts that the tribunal did not pass orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner for six months, cannot be said to be a fault attributable to the assessee. The assessee on his part had within time prescribed applied for the statutory remedy and it was statutory authority who did not pass necessary orders speedily. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
