9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2017, for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant for failure to make pre deposit of 25% of tax demand without taking into cognizance the factual financial position of the appellant's company ? (ii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by ignoring the real question involved in the present case i.e. whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in ordering 25% of tax as pre-deposit in the case of appellant, who was suffering from extreme financial difficulties and prayed for complete waiver of pre-deposit? (iii) Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the PVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). It regularly filed its returns and also discharged its tax liability thereon. Original assessment for the year 2008-09 in case of the appellant-assessee was framed under Section 29(2) of the PVAT Act by the Designated Officer, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 18.9.2012. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hoshiarpur framed amendment in assessment under Section 29(7) of the PVAT Act vide order dated 29.7.2015, Annexure A.1 creating an additional demand of Rs. 70,79,176/- (Tax = Rs. 19,52,876/-, penalty under Section 53= Rs. 29,29,314/- and interest under Section 32(3) = Rs. 21,96,986/-) Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the Tribunal by the appellant assessee was dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2017, Annexure A.4. Relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in Punjab State Power Corporation vs. State of Punjab and others, (2016) VST 66, it was concluded by the Tribunal that it was neither rarest of the rare case where further protection could be granted. The financial condition of the appellant was not bad so as to grant it full protection from making compliance of Section 62(5) of the Act. Still the appellate authority had in its discretion relaxed the condition by way of directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the additional tax only instead of deposit of 25% of additional demand, penalty and interest. Thus, the Tribunal rightly dismissed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
