9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax (Appeals) on the petitioner's depositing an amount of Rs. 33.64 Lakh out of a total demand inclusive of interest at Rs. 1.90 Crores. 2. The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that for the period from 2008-2009 assessment was completed on 30th March, 2013 denying the appellant's claim of input tax credit. This resulted in an aggregate demand of Rs. 1.90 Crores (inclusive of interest). 3. Being aggrieved with the assessment order dated 30th March, 2013 the petitioner had filed a First Appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals). In the first Appeal a part payment was ordered by the First Appellate Authority on 11th June, 2014 for stay of the assessment order pending disposal of the Appeal. 4. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or was it challenged before any higher forum. 8. Mr. Thakar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal would require interference. This as it is not taken into account the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries VAT Second Appeal No.195 of 2015 decided on 20/10/2017. Besides, it is submitted that the cause of action in this appeal is different from that when the earlier order was passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it should have considered the submission on merits and not dismissed it as on account of not complying with its earlier order. Besides, Mr. Thakar submits that the petitioner is in financial difficulty. However not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In these facts, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles it to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. At this stage, Mr. Thakar sought extension of time to deposit the amount directed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. In view of not having entertained the petition, we see no reason to grant any extension. However, we make it clear that in case the petitioner does deposit the amount as directed by the impugned order of the Tribunal, it would be open to him to approach the Tribunal to extend the time to make the deposit. The Tribunal would consider such an application on its own merits and pass appropriate orders thereon. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
