9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commercial Tax OfficerIV, Patan, passed an order assessing the petitioner's tax liabilities under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the Assessment Period 20062007. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) DivIII, Gandhinagar. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 30.07.2013, decided the appeal against the petitioner. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Dy. Commissioner passed on 30.07.2013, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal No. 891 of 2013 and Second Appeal No. 892 of 2013 before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). The appeals were admitted on a condition of the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards outstanding demand. On such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing order: " Hence, appellant is permitted to withdraw appeals and accordingly these Appeals stand disposed off as withdrawn and interim relief granted against the recovery of tax demand stands vacated." 7 After the appeals were withdrawn, the Commercial Tax OfficerV, Patan, by a communication dated 21.03.2017 directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 11,27,740/which included the amount of interest of Rs. 5,68,574/and 25 percent of penalty of Rs. 1,50,591/. This prompted the petitioner to file an application seeking restoration of his appeals before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The application seeking restoration of the appeals was filed for the reasons stated in the application which read as under : "6 The applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw the Appeal had reserved liberty to revive the appellant's appeal if the assessee was not given the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Similar treatment was prayed for. 9 By the impugned order dated 19.06.2017, the Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner seeking revival and restoration of Second Appeals. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the Second Appeals were unconditionally withdrawn for the purpose of taking benefit under the Amnesty Scheme 2016. While withdrawing such appeals, no liberty was reserved by the applicants for restoration of such appeals in the event of the benefit of the Scheme not being extended. The Second Appeals were therefore not restored. In the Tribunal's view, the case of the petitioner/ appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respective parties, the order of the Tribunal refusing restoration / revival of appeals deserves to be quashed and set aside on the following grounds: A) The petitioner had sought withdrawal of the appeals, on 28.09.2016, in order to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Withdrawal of such appeals was a precondition for the benefit of the Scheme to be extended to the assessee. The application was, therefore, moved before the Tribunal to withdraw the appeals. B) By miscellaneous application No. 11 of 2017, the petitioner sought recall of the order and requested the Tribunal to revive the Second Appeals as the Government refused to extend the benefits of the amnesty Scheme, 2016. While seeking revival of the Second Appeals, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
