Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (8) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e notice was issued alleging that such purchases were made from Taxraj Reality which was an unregistered dealer, in which case, the assessee would have to pay purchase tax and would be denied tax credit thereof. To avoid such a situation, the assessee created bogus purchase bills from registered dealers and availed tax credit on the sales tax shown to have been paid by them. On such basis, recovery of tax, interest and penalty were confirmed by the Assessing Officer by his order dated 20th December 2011. 4. Under the VAT Act, the assessee had to pay an amount of Rs. 49,11,219/- with interest and penalty and under the Central Sales Tax Act, it has to pay an amount of Rs. 4,11,613/- plus interest and penalty. When the assessee challenged suc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y recall that the order under challenge before the Tribunal was one passed by the appellate Commissioner dismissing the appeals of the appellant for want of pre-deposit. The Commissioner insisted that the appellant must deposit Rs. 23,00,400/- by way of pre-deposit. Scope of the appeal before the Tribunal was whether such condition imposed by the Commissioner was correct in law or not. If the Tribunal was of the opinion that the condition was validly imposed, it could have dismissed the appeals of the appellant. If on the other hand, the Tribunal, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, was of the opinion that any lesser amount or no payment by way of pre-deposit was necessary, it could have provided so. If the appellant had ful .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of the Assessing Officer on merits as the first appellate authority. 7. Second reason why we would not approve such approach is that the Tribunal is considered as the final fact finding authority. When complex facts present themselves, as in the present case, the same would be first examined by the Assessing Officer upon which the statute provides first appeal before the Commissioner against whose order, person aggrieved approaches in a second appeal before the Tribunal. Essentially, therefore, in majority of the cases, the Tribunal is the second appellate authority. The decision which the Tribunal therefore renders would have been scanned by two quasi judicial authorities previously. It would not be permissible in law nor would be prud .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld not have been entertained unless in terms of proviso, the appellate authority for reasons recorded in writing relaxed the requirement of full predeposit. In the present case, the Appellate Commissioner exercised such powers and required the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount confirmed by the adjudicating authority. When the appellant failed to fulfill such requirement, his appeal came to be dismissed. It was against this order that the appellant had preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The scope of the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, had to be limited to the question of finding out whether the order passed by the Commissioner insisting on the appellant depositing certain amount by way of predeposit was valid or not and resul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibuted to this complication. In the appeal, his main grounds were against the assessment order. His prayers pertained only to the issues on merits about the additions made by the Assessing Officer. There was no prayer for setting aside the appellate order of imposing condition and subsequently, dismissing his appeal when he failed to fulfill such condition. Even if it were so, the Tribunal could have either permitted the appellant to suitably amend the prayer or if the appellant was not willing to do so, dismiss his appeal as not maintainable. In our opinion, the Tribunal could not have bypassed the first appellate authority and statutory requirement of predeposit, unless it was waived by an order in writing.      6. We .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates