9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KAR, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This petition is filed by the State Government with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) in a revision petition as well as an order dated 9.1.2014 passed by the said Tribunal in a Misc. Application. The petitioner has also challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h consequential interest and penalty. Since despite such declaration and direction of the Tribunal, the Government was not releasing the predeposit made by the assessee, in order to avoid recovery of tax pending revision petition before the Tribunal, the assessee filed Misc. application No.50/2013 before the Tribunal in which the Tribunal passed an order on 9/1/2014 giving following directions : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department and Shri Soparkar for the respondent assessee, we find that the department's challenge to the order of the Tribunal dated 27.2.2009 is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. In the petition, effectively no grounds are raised and no averments are made explaining such inordinate delay of nearly six years in filing this petition. The order was passed by the Tribunal on 27.2.2009. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said orders, discussed these aspects and held that principle of unjust enrichment would not apply. If it was open for the Tribunal to do so while disposing of the original proceedings, the Tribunal could perhaps have entered into these aspects ofcourse, following the principles of natural justice. However, neither the question of unjust enrichment formed part of the discussion in the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
