9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 3-3-2008 - SATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND RAKESH KUMAR GARG , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by SATISH KUMAR MITTAL J. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-corporation ) has filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated December 3, 2007 (annexure P-3), passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, confirming the order dated April 26, 2007 (annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala, respondent No. 3 herein, (hereinafter referred to as the first Appellate Authority ), whereby the petitioner-corporation was directed to deposit 10 per cent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed by the petitioner. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders. Though in this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the assessment order (annexure P-1), but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer with regard to the impugned order dated December 3, 2007 (annexure P-3) and April 26, 2007 (annexure P-2) only, whereby application of the petitioner for waiving of condition of pre-deposit of the additional demand has been disposed with a direction to deposit 10 per cent of the additional demand. Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the authorities below have not properly appreciated the difficulties being faced by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al demand as pre-condition for entertaining the appeal. It is well-settled that at the time of consideration of the application for waiving off the condition of pre-deposit of the additional demand, the court is not required to go into the merits of the case. The authorities below, while taking into consideration the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, have ordered that the petitioner will pay only 10 per cent of the additional demand and furnish surety bond for the balance amount. Such an order, in our opinion, does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court. In our opinion, the requirement to pay 10 per cent of the additional demand will not cause hardship, which can be termed as undu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
