9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial position of the appellant company, rather weak and any harsh condition would put them in difficulty as the appeals would not be heard and decided on merits but dismissed on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit – thus, the order of the Tribunal is modified as Calcom Electronics Ltd. is directed to deposit a consolidated amount of ₹ 10 lacs, which will be deposited in two instalments - Partial stay granted. - ST.APPL. 48/2014 & CM No. 13821/2014, ST.APPL. 51/2014 & CM No. 14002/2014, ST.APPL. 52/2014 & CM No. 14048/2014, ST.APPL. 59/2014 & CM Nos. 16290-92/2014, ST.APPL. 60/2014 & CM Nos. 16293-95/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2014 - Sanjiv Khanna And V. Kameswar Rao,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Balram Sangal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, ASC with Ms.Latika Dutta, Advocate ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J (Oral) CM Nos. 16290/2014 16292/2014 (condonation of delay) in ST. APPL. 59/2014 CM Nos. 16293/2014 16295/2014 (condonation of delay) in ST. APPL. 60/2014 These are the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeals. There is a delay of 47 days in filing and a delay of 15 days in refiling of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 16.10.2001, directing the appellant herein to make pre-deposit of ₹ 4 lacs under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and ₹ 2000/- under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said deposits were duly made. 6.3 The first appellate authority, after a gap of 11 years vide order dated 7.9.2012, rejected the first appeal on merits. Thereupon, the appellant assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 28.03.2014, has been directed to deposit 10% of the disputed amount as a condition precedent for hearing appeals on merits. Financial Year :- 1998-99 7. By the Assessment Order dated 27.02.2001 relating to the Financial Year 1998-99, demand of ₹ 18,29,303/- and ₹ 28,42,429/- was created under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, respectively. The First appellate authority vide order dated 5.9.2001 directed the appellant to deposit ₹ 10 lacs and ₹ 50,000 under Delhi Sales Tax Act 1975 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, respectively, as a condition precedent for hearing appeals on merits. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 22.8.2001, directed the appellant to pay 20% of the disputed tax amount under the Delhi Sales Tax, 1975 and 10% of the disputed tax amount under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Aggrieved, the appellant assessee filed appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the amount of pre-deposit was reduced to ₹ 2 lacs. The deposit was duly made. After about 11 years, by order dated 21.09.2012, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on merits. Aggrieved, the appellant assessee has filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax and has been asked to deposit 20% of the disputed tax amount under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and 10% of the disputed penalty amount as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeals on merits. ST. APPL. No. 60 of 2014 (filed by Calcom Vision Ltd.) (Financial Year 1998-99) 10. By Assessment Order dated 09.01.2001, demand of ₹ 17,41,950/- and ₹ 1,82,002/- was created under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively. The first appellate authority, vide order dated 22.8.2001, directed the appellant herein to deposit 10% of the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before the Appellate Tribunal on or before 2001, though some forms were filed for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal in 2014. Primarily, the demand created is on account of the said forms. It is noticeable that in the cases filed by Calcom Electronics Ltd., the appellant relies upon ST-35 forms of ₹ 6,21,91,904/- from their sister concern Calcom Vision Ltd., the other appellant. It is also noticeable that the question of pre-deposit had earlier become the subject matter of an order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Calcom Electronics Ltd. for the Financial Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and in the case of Calcom Vision Ltd. for the Financial Year 1997-98. The said deposits as directed were made. The financial position of the appellant company, it is apparent, rather weak and any harsh condition would put them in difficulty as the appeals would not be heard and decided on merits but dismissed on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit. 13. It has been rightly highlighted before us that the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax has primarily proceeded and erred in holding that the forms had been filed for the first time before it in 2014, whereas the case of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
