9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale bills issued by them. Suffice it to observe that the prima facie conclusion of the Additional Commissioner in this regard cannot be said to suffer from perversity necessitating exercise interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that the petitioner paid 25% of the disputed tax would not by itself justify grant of stay. While the petitioner’s request, that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner must be set aside, necessitates rejection, it is made clear that, while paying the balance tax due in terms of the order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner shall be given credit for the amount paid by them towards the tax due. - writ petition dismissed - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.06.2016, rejected the petitioner s application for grant of stay. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition. Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, as the petitioner is a retail dealer, Rule 26(1) of the Rules which requires the particulars to be mentioned in each invoice is not applicable; the fifth respondent erred in examining the matter on its merits; by passing an elaborate order, the fifth respondent had rendered the appeal pending before the Tribunal infructuous; and, as the substantive appeal is still pending on the file of the Tribunal, the revisional authority ought not to have considered the matter on its merits. While Rule 26(1) of the Rules applies to a dealer, other than a retail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner was bound to deal with all the contentions raised by the petitioner in their stay application, and record his prima facie conclusion. His failure to do so may have resulted in the petitioner complaining that the objections raised by them, in their stay petition was not even examined. Reliance placed, on behalf of the petitioner, on Section 33(6) of the Act to contend that the Additional Commissioner is bound to pass a conditional order of stay pending disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal does not also merit acceptance. Section 33(6)(a) of the Act merely stipulates that, when an appeal is preferred before the Tribunal, the Additional Commissioner may, on an application being filed by the dealer and subject to such terms and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the petitioner s request, that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner must be set aside, necessitates rejection, it is made clear that, while paying the balance tax due in terms of the order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner shall be given credit for the amount paid by them towards the tax due. Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, requests eight weeks time to make payment of the balance tax due. We, however, consider it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps, for recovery of the balance tax due pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, in case the petitioner pays the balance tax due within a period of four (4) weeks from today. Needless to state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
