9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "the Tribunal") in First Appeal No.21 of 2014 by proposing the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law:- [1] Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in reducing amount of pre-deposit to 5% of tax demand? [2] Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in reducing the amount of bank guarantee requirement to 20% of tax demand? [3] Any other substantial questions of law as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be framed. 2. The facts stated briefly are that an assessment order dated 1st October, 2014 came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax in the case of the respondent assessee for financial year 2010-11 raising a total demand of Rs. 13,01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied with the direction for furnishing bank guarantee and requested that the appeal be disposed of with a direction to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits and till he decides the appeal, the stay granted by the Tribunal may be continued. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Government Representative stated that he had no objection if such order is passed. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 27th November, 2014 of the Joint Commissioner and ordered that in view of the amount deposited and bank guarantee furnished by the respondent, no further amount is required to be paid by it, and directed the Joint Commissioner to decide the first appeal on merits in accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and that there is no warrant for interference by this court as the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law, as proposed or otherwise. As regards the submission regarding the Tribunal not having expressed any opinion on the question of hardship, reliance was placed upon a decision of this court in the case of JCT Limited v. State of Gujarat and others, (2011) 41 VST 312 (Guj), wherein this court has expressed the view that unlike the provisions of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, sub-section (4) of section 73 of the Act nowhere provides that the Tribunal shall consider the question of waiver of the amount of pre- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
