9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest which comes to ₹ 39,38,927/- and ₹ 35,45,034/- totaling around approximately ₹ 75 lacs. Therefore, keeping all the rights open of the petitioner, if the petitioner has already paid an amount of ₹ 49,66,903/-, we deem it proper to direct the petitioner to pay the balance amount. Meaning thereby an amount (-) ₹ 49,66,903/-, so that ultimately total amount of ₹ 75 lacs be paid by the petitioner by way of pre-deposit. - stay granted partly. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9663 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : UCHIT N SHETH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, AGP ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into circular transactions and for that purpose, reassessment notice was issued to the petitioner for the year 2010-11. Despite the fact that the petitioner contended specifically that it had made genuine sales and purchases transactions and is left with no other tax liability any further either under the VAT Act or the Central Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had passed an order on 31.3.2016 by determining huge demand as also the penalty under Sections 31(3), 31(4) and 34(7) of the VAT Act and essentially arrived at a conclusion that though the petitioner had not entered into the sales and purchases transactions, the tax was collected illegally. It is on this premise, the Assessing Officer had passed an order. In the background of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... still the VAT Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of tax liability outstanding as per the reassessment and vide order dated 5.5.2016, it passed an order mainly on the premise that petitioner has shown willingness to pay further sum of ₹ 50 lacs. Since the said observations of the VAT Tribunal was not correct, the petitioner filed a rectification application on 17.5.2016 for deleting the said observations. Since there was an apparent error, the petitioner also filed an application for early hearing of said rectification application on 19.5.2016. Said application is pending and in the background of that fact, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition for challenging the legality and validit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Department and therefore, the authorities below are justified in ordering the petitioner to deposit further sum as mentioned in the order. Learned AGP has submitted affidavit-in-reply sworn by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeal-1), Ahmedabad wherein, it has been mentioned that petitioner has never produced the challan with respect to amount of ₹ 49,60,903/- has stated to have been paid and therefore, no fault can be found of the authorities while passing the impugned orders. However, ultimately, if at all the petitioner has paid any amount referred to above and the petitioner upon showing a legitimate record for such payment, the department will not dispute to credit such payment from the amount of demand as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal before the first appellate authority after verifying that the petitioner has by 22.8.2015 deposited the remaining amount so that the total deposit comes to ₹ 75 lacs. 9. Upon such deposit, the VAT Tribunal is requested to dispose of the second appeal by directing the first appellate authority to hear the first appeal on merits at the earliest by treating this amount as the amount of pre-deposit to the said appeal. We make it clear that since it is at the stage of predeposit issue, we have not gone into the merits of the case and therefore, it is open for the petitioner to raise appropriate contentions before the appellate forum. 10. With aforesaid observations and directions, present petition is disposed of. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
