9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been deposited by the appellant at that stage. However, the proceedings before the first appellate authority lingered on for a period of six years. After a period of six years, notice of hearing came to be issued to the appellant. In the meanwhile, the business premises of the appellant had been sealed. Under the circumstances, the appellant was not aware of the hearing fixed by the first appellate authority as the notice of hearing had been pasted on the closed premises. The first appellate authority, in view of the fact that the appellant had not remained present for personal hearing, confirmed the earlier order passed by it. Tribunal had thought it fit to direct pre-deposit of only ₹ 5,00,000/- for the purpose of hearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equire consideration, hence, admit. The following substantial question of law arises for determination in each appeal:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in directing payment of pre-deposit of tax as well as interest amount for both the years? 3. In view of the fact that the controversy involved in the present case lies in a very narrow compass, the appeals were taken up for hearing today. 4. The facts stated briefly are that assessment proceedings came to be initiated in the case of the petitioner which culminated into assessment orders confirming a total demand of ₹ 2,56,15,765/- comprising of tax of ₹ 84,27,555/-, interest of ₹ 45, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst appellate authority. The first appellate authority without carrying out any further procedure for service of notice of hearing, dismissed the appeals by an order dated 29th April, 2014. The assessee carried the matters in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 5th September, 2014, directed the appellant to make payment of the tax as well as interest for assessment year 2002-03 by giving credit of the amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- which was paid by the appellant in the first round and directed the appellant to pay the balance amount of tax together with interest within a period of one month and adjourned the appeals for further hearing to 8th October, 2014. On 4th October, 2014, the appellant filed affidavit stating i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal as to why the appellant is required to be directed to pay the entire tax as well as interest. It was submitted that the impugned order being a non-speaking as well as an unreasonable order, deserves to be set aside and the appeals deserve to be allowed. 7. Opposing the appeals, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the tax amount itself is more than ₹ 80,00,000/- and together with interest and penalty, the figure comes to more than ₹ 2,50,00,000/-, under the circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly justified in directing pre-deposit of the tax and interest as a pre-condition for hearing the appeals. It was submitted that the amount which has been depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y lingered on for a period of six years. After a period of six years, notice of hearing came to be issued to the appellant. In the meanwhile, the business premises of the appellant had been sealed. Under the circumstances, the appellant was not aware of the hearing fixed by the first appellate authority as the notice of hearing had been pasted on the closed premises. The first appellate authority, in view of the fact that the appellant had not remained present for personal hearing, confirmed the earlier order passed by it. In the second round, the Tribunal on the same set of facts has now directed the appellant to pre-deposit the entire tax amount together with interest which comes to more than ₹ 1,25,00,000/-. While directing the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals by the Tribunal. 10. In the light of the above discussion, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that the Gujarat value Added Tax Tribunal was not justified in directing payment of pre-deposit of the entire tax amount together with interest. 11. In the result, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 5th September, 2014 and 8th October, 2014 passed by the Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside. The appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal, which shall decide the same in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The stay applications filed by the appellant before the Tribunal are hereby allowed subject to pre-deposit of the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
