9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay 25% of the “disputed amount”. The reason is simple, because when no demand was in existence and payable, the question of waiver of pre-deposit would not arise. There is difference between waiver of pre-deposit and direction to pay “tax” which was not determined and decided. Appellate tribunal has decided the application for waiver of deposit. It has not decided an application of the revenue that ad hoc payment should be deposited, assuming that such application was maintainable. The aforesaid distinction has not been kept in mind and deliberated while deciding an application for waiver of pre-deposit. In fact the appellant was not required to file the said application. Noticeably, the appellant assessee had deposited 5% of amount in dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te when the appeal was preferred and on 24th April, 2014, when the Appellate Tribunal had passed the order directing the said pre-deposit 2. With the consent of the parties and as a short issue arises for consideration, we take up the appeal for hearing and disposal today itself. 3. The appellant was subjected to assessment under Section 23(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 for the assessment period 2002-03 vide order dated 31st March, 2004. The additional tax payable by the appellant was assessed at ₹ 33,13,396/-. 4. In the first appeal, Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20th October, 2009, passed an order of remand recording that the ends of justice would be met in case the appellant herein was given one more oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the issue/question relating to quantum of alleged tax free sale etc. is pending consideration before the Assessing Authority for de novo assessment. It is accepted that till today, quantum has not been adjudicated. The legal effect of the first appellate order is that the demand of ₹ 33,13,396/- is not recoverable. In fact no amount was due and payable on the date when the appellant had filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and on 26th February, 2014 and when the order, disposing of the application under Section 43(5), was passed. 6. When there was no demand, which was due and payable, we do not think that the appellant was required to pay 25% of the disputed amount . The reason is simple, because when no demand was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
