9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit (ITC) claim cannot be allowed to the appellant. The ITC claimed on an amount of ₹ 55,205,933/- was disallowed. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment vide order, Annexure A-2, creating demand of ₹ 1,09,86,225/- including the interest and penalty. The order of the First Appellate Authority and dismissed the appeal by holding that neither the appellant had pleaded that it had gone insolvent or was not in possession of any funds, nor it deposited any amount in terms of Section 62 (5) of the Act. The appellant had not filed any affidavit to the effect that it had gone into losses and was unable to pay even 10% of the tax demand. The appellant has failed to pin point any illegality or perversity in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns for the assessment year 2009- 10 within the stipulated period and no tax was due to the State exchequer. Earlier, the assessment for the year 2009-10 was framed. The said assessment was challenged before the First Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal of the appellant which gave rise to the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant filed VATAP- 242-2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.5.2015 (Annexure A-1) accepted the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to frame a de novo assessment. In pursuance thereto, a notice was issued to the appellant. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment vide order dated 3.2.2016 (Annexure A-2) raising a demand of ₹ 1,09,86,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CWP-26920-2013 decided on 23.12.2015, relaxed the pre-condition of deposit of 25% of the total amount to 10% of the tax demand as required under Section 62(5) of the Act. The appellant having failed to deposit 10% of the tax demand, the First Appellate Authority vide order, Annexure A-3 dismissed the appeal in limine. The relevant findings recorded by the First Appellate Court is as under:- Both the parties have been heard at length and the record of the case has also been perused. I have also carefully gone through the ground of appeal as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in the case of M/s PSPCL Vs. The State of Punjab others in CWP No. 26290-2013 decided on 23.12.2015. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled any affidavit to the effect that appellant has gone into losses and is unable to pay even 10% of the tax demand. The petition before the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal appears to be filed in the year 2014, whereas the case relates to the assessment year 2009-10. The filing of the petition by itself is no ground to establish that the appellant is suffering from any financial crunch. If the appellant is granted full protection, then it would encourage the appellant to enter into superfluous litigation and it would result into having loss of the State Revenue. If the appeal is accepted then the amount as deposited by the appellant firm would be refunded to him, whereas, the non deposit would render Section 62 (5) of the Act as redunda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
