9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case from the aspect of financial hardship, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, subsection (3) of section 73 of the Act does not contemplate financial hardship as one of the factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of waiver of pre-deposit - it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity giving rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise. - Decided against Revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO.717 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A.G.URAIZEE, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR THE OPPONENT : MR UCHIT N SHETH, AD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g amount within seven days by way of pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of pre-deposit, the respondent preferred appeal before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal being First Appeal No.21 of 2014. 3. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before the Tribunal on 11th December, 2014, the Tribunal directed the respondent to pay 5% of tax demand which came to about ₹ 13,84,000/- and to furnish bank guarantee of 20% of the tax demand within two weeks from the date of the order. It was further observed that upon payment of 5% of the tax demand, that is ₹ 13,84,000/-, the attachment of the bank account of the respondent must be released. It having been brought to the notice of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Joint Commissioner shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant assailed the impugned order by submitting that the first appellate authority had, after duly considering the merits of the case, directed the assessee to make pre-deposit of 20% of the total demand and to furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining amount. It was submitted that the Tribunal has without assigning any reasons whatsoever reduced such amount to 5% of the tax demand and bank guarantee for 205 of the tax demand. It was submitted that while pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the learned counsel for the respondent for directing the first appellate authority to decide the appeal in view of the deposit of 5% of the tax demand and furnishing of bank guarantee for 20% of the tax demand. Therefore, the Tribunal does not appear to have assigned any reasons for reducing the amount of pre-deposit. As regards the contention that the Tribunal has not examined the facts of the case from the aspect of financial hardship, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, subsection (3) of section 73 of the Act does not contemplate financial hardship as one of the factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of waiver of pre-deposit. 9. In view of the above, it is not possible to state tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
