9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby indemnity bond submitted by the petitioner on 21.06.2019 has not been accepted by the authority concerned and further the petitioner has been directed to submit bank guarantee of the amount in question pursuant to the notice issued by the department. It has further been directed that on deposit of bank guarantee, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that he is unable to deposit the bank guarantee to the tune which has been demanded by the respondents, inasmuch as despite having huge capital assets, it would adversely affect his running capital. To canvass his submission, the petitioner has invited attention of the provision of Section 19 of the U.P. Value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r furnishing of bank guarantee in the form which has been demanded by the Assessing Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Emami Limited, T.P. Nagar, Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in [2008] 47 STR 5, where in similar circumstances the Court has held that demand of bank guarantee as security would not be justified by the State where the assessee is an established commercial concern of substantial size continuing over past several years and is an existing tax payer. The Court in the said judgement has further held that demanding bank guarantee may not be desirable except where there are cogent reasons for requiring bank guarantee as secu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire legal aspects of the matter in the case of M/s Emami Limited (supra) has held that in the circumstances, as existing in the present case also, the demand of bank guarantee by the Assessing Authority cannot be justified. This court bears in mind that security which is to be given should be such that it protects the interest of the Revenue, in case of any default by the assessee. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the statutory provision as contained in Rule 37(1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 is to be followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has himself admitted that he is willing to deposit security as envisaged under Rule 37(1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. Thus, it is pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
