9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal. The central issue was whether the Audit Officer could have picked up some transactions of the Assessee under Section 58 of the DVAT Act even when the original assessment order for the same period was already pending consideration before the OHA. This does not appear to have been addressed even from the point of view of the prima facie case of the Appellant. - Assessee has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the order dated 23rd September 2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax ('Tribunal') whereby as a pre-condition for considering its appeal against the order dated 5th May 2015 passed by the Special Commissioner, the Objection Hearing Authority ('OHA'), the Tribunal has directed the Appellant to deposit 20% of the amount of disputed tax and interest and 10% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee the very transactions which were the subject matter of the assessment order, the challenge to which was pending before the OHA, had been picked for audit, and the VATO for a second time passed the assessment order on 5th March 2013 by concluding that the transactions of the Appellant fell under Section 6(2)(b) of the CST Act. 4. As far as the original assessment order is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was whether the Audit Officer could have picked up some transactions of the Assessee under Section 58 of the DVAT Act even when the original assessment order for the same period was already pending consideration before the OHA. This does not appear to have been addressed even from the point of view of the prima facie case of the Appellant. 6. Secondly, the fact that the Assessee has already dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
