9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority below were justified to register the appeal as defective, despite under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act the revisionist company has been declared as sick unit and by the order of the State Government, the revisionist company was also under the scheme of 'deferment of the payment of tax '? 2.. Whether, under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Tribunal as well as Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) were justified? Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The aforesaid two questions are the verbatim reproduction of the questions of law as framed in the memo of revision. The order dated March 12, 2004 dismissing the revision was passed without giving a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not deposited the admitted tax before the entertainment of the appeal. The appellant took a stand before the first appellate authority that the State Government by its order dated August 22, 1996 permitted the payment of tax for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99 in five instalments by the order beginning from April 30, 2000 to April 30, 2004. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the finding that in spite of the instalments granted to the appellant, it has failed to deposit any of the instalments and as such failed to comply with the statutory condition as specified in section 9(1B) of the Act. This order was passed on April 18, 2001. In second appeal, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the first ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein is about the maintainability of the first appeal in view of section 9(1B) of the Act. The learned counsel could not show me as to how and in what manner the ratio given in the case of Tata Davy [1998] 111 STC 462 (SC); [1997] 7 JT SC 216 has any application to the facts of the present case. There appears to be no similarity of the facts and with regard to the points of determination in both the cases one in hand and another cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant even in the recall proceedings was permitted to argue the revision at length, but could not show me any statutory provision or principle of law to give a go by to the provisions of section 9(1B) of the Act in the facts of the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
