9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t confirmed against the petitioner - interim order not to be interfered with - Decided against the assessee. - WP(C).No. 6341 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar,J. For the Petitioner : Sri. Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Sri. Tojan J. Vathikulam,SC,C. B JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 conditional order of stay passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal, in an appeal that was preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent. 2. The main ground of challenge against Ext.P4 is that, while the petitioner had raised a specific contention regarding the extended period of limitation, that was invoked in the present case to fasten the liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant's conduct would amount to wilful misdeclaration or suppression of facts so as to attract extended period. For this purpose the matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner for de novo examination of the issue of limitation on the basis of the criteria in this regard laid down by the Apex Court on the above-mentioned judgments. If longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) is not invokable, there will be no case for imposition of penalty under Section 78 as the condition for imposing penalty under Section 78 and the conditions for invoking longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) are identical. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 order is vitiated by a patent non application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner, of the fact of wilful misrepresentation/suppression, while dealing with the contentions of the petitioner on limitation. 5. Be that as it may, I find that, on the facts of the instant case, the 1st respondent Tribunal has only directed the petitioner to pay an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs, out of the confirmed demand of ₹ 61,20,000/-. The amount required to be deposited works out only to 33% of the amount confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 order. In that view of the matter, I refrain from interfering with the directions in Ext.P4 order, save to the limited extent of permitting the petitioner to pay the said amount on or before 31.03.2015. 6. Resultantly, if the petitioner remits the amounts directed to be depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
