9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober 28, 2015. Since such appeal was filed prior to August 6, 2014, the provision in Section 35F of the Act pertaining to discretion as to pre-deposit governed the matter. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lakh in addition to the amount of Rs. 4.18 lakh already deposited. The further deposit was directed to be made within eight weeks from the date of the order, for the remainder of the demand to remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Compliance was directed to be reported on January 4, 2016 and the order observed that the failure to deposit the amount would result in dismissal of the appeal without further reference. 3. The petitioner did not make the further deposit of Rs. 6 lakh in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toration of the appeal to its file and in which event the matter will have to be decided on merits. If, however, the net worth is found to be a positive figure, the Tribunal will say so, give its reasons and dispose of the modification application in accordance with law. "The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly." 5. Nothing in the order of the Supreme Court amounts to the enunciation of any law that will be binding under Article 141 of the Constitution to the effect that when the net worth of an assessee company is negative, the entire pre-deposit is to be waived. As would appear from the Supreme Court order, it made some observations and left the matter for consideration by the appropriate Tribunal. The order cannot be interpret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the petitioner having suffered an order of October 28, 2015, presumably after citing whatever authorities the petitioner may have had to cite in support of the petitioner's prayer for waiver or red`uction of the pre-deposit, the petitioner was not entitled to seek a modification of the order before the same forum by referring to orders that the petitioner chose not to cite on October 28, 2015. Indeed, the application for modification admitted that the fact that the petitioner company had a negative net worth "had not been brought to the notice of this Honble Tribunal earlier." However, such application carried no explanation as to why the aspect pertaining to the negative net worth of the company was not alluded to earlier. 9. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
