9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid contention of the writ petitioner and erroneously affirmed the order passed by the designated authority. Thus set aside the order passed by the designated authority as well as the Tribunal below and direct the designated authority to consider the application for settlement of the dispute without insisting on deposit of any further amount by the writ petitioner as a condition for considering the merit of the application. - 13 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2011 - BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA AND SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI DR.,JJ. This application under article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated September 24, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priate application under section 5 of the same along with the required amount of fees as mentioned in section 7 of the said Act. According to the provision of the SOD Act, it is the duty of the designated officer to verify whether the said dispute application has been filed after complying with the requirement of the Act and deposit of the payment prescribed under the Act. It is also the duty of the designated authority to see that a valid appeal or revision as the case may be is pending. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner has filled up the application in accordance with law and has also made payment of the required amount as prescribed in section 7 of the SOD Act. The designated officer under the SOD Act was, however, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has very much disputed his liability to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,65,837 and thus according to the provision of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, he is not under any obligation to deposit the aforesaid amount which he has challenged as not payable. The designated authority under the SOD Act, therefore, committed a jurisdictional error in directing the appellant to deposit the amount which he has challenged in the appeal as not payble as condition of entertainment of the application under section 5 of the SOD Act. The Tribunal below also did not appreciate the aforesaid contention of the writ petitioner and erroneously affirmed the order passed by the designated authority. We, therefore, set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
