9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al would be exercise in futility and it will cause undue hardship to the dealer as the dealer is required to be incurred expenditure for engaging lawyer etc in appeal, which lack merits - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 132 of 2017 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 86 of 2017 With STAMP NUMBER NO. 86 of 2017 With STAMP NUMBER NO. 88 of 2017 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 86 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Applicant : MR. HARDIK VORA ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicantState of Gujarat through Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent application deserves to be dismissed. 4.0. Even otherwise, to satisfy ourselves prima facie whether there is any merit in the appeal, we have also heard Shri Vora, learned AGP on merits also. We have also considered and gone in detail the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. It is required to be noted that exemption certificate came to be cancelled after a period of 11 years from the date of transaction / alleged breach. The learned Tribunal has also found that even the order of cancellation of exemption registration was beyond the order of remand. It is required to be noted and it is borne out from the impugned judgment and order that earlier AO raised the demand of tax of ₹ 2,59,94,742/for the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result of the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner total demand outstanding against the dealer to the tune of ₹ 1,57,18,865/which inter alia includes the tax demand of ₹ 53,41,892. The dealer initially made the payment of ₹ 3,00,000/and after deduction of such amount, tax demand outstanding to the tune of ₹ 50,41,892/, which was raised only because of the fact that the exemption certificate was cancelled abinitio by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 10.10.2013. 4.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (First Appellate Authority) which was passed pursuant to the earlier order of demand as well as order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner in appeal with respect to the demand of tax interest and penalty and to consider the document produced by the dealer. Therefore, even if the remand was open remand, it was not for the purpose of passing order of cancellation of the exemption certificate/ registration. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even remand order was in the year 2005 and the order of cancelling registration has been passed in the year 2013. The exemption certificate / registration has been cancelled for the breach alleged to have been committed in the year 200001. The same has been cancelled abinitio. In between number of transactions has taken place on the basis of continuance of exemption certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
