9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for the remaining 70% of the alleged tax due can also call for the appellant to furnish any security including the Bank Guarantee for the said sum. Admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner herein before respondent No.2 as an appellant was not pending beyond a period of 30 days and that there was no deemed grant of an interim order of stay. As such, it is Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the K.V.A.T. Act is applicable, which does not specifically mention about furnishing of Bank Guarantee or other security for the remaining sum of 70% - requirement of furnishing of Bank Guarantee set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 104784/2018 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 18-8-2018 - DR. H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding amount, to the satisfaction of the respondent-authority, within 15 days from the date of the alleged order, failing which, the respondent may be at the liberty to initiate proceedings for recovery of balance amount as per law. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his submission while stating that, as per Section 62(4)(c) of the K.V.A.T. Act, respondent No.2 cannot direct for issuance of any Bank Guarantee or similar security for the alleged remaining amount also submitted that, he would confine his writ petition only for the prayer A impugned in the prayer column in the writ petition. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for both the respondents and is representing them. 5. Section 62(4)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order for the remaining 70% of the alleged tax due can also call for the appellant to furnish any security including the Bank Guarantee for the said sum. It is on this line, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be appreciated. 7. The argument of the learned AGA that Sub Section (ii) of the very same Section 62(4)(c) of the K.V.A.T. Act empowers the Appellate Authority to call for furnishing any security would not be applicable in the case on hand for the reason that, admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner herein before respondent No.2 as an appellant was not pending beyond a period of 30 days and that there was no deemed grant of an interim order of stay. As such, it is Section 62(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
