9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd what circumstances did the Tribunal direct the deposit of 10% of the amount after having recorded that a prima facie case was made out and the deposit would cause financial hardship to the revisionist. In view of the fact that the revision is confined to the challenge of the order passed by the Tribunal, this Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot direct any refund of the amount, which according to the counsel for the revisionist, are illegally debited from the account of the revisionist. The revisionist, if so advised, may take appropriate proceedings for refund of the said amount. The question is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Department - Revision allowed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 20.3.2020, under section 28(2) of the VAT Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') enhanced the turn over giving rise to a disputed tax liability of ₹ 50,90,63,883/-. The said order of assessment was challenged before the appellate authority which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.2018 and the matter was remanded before the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority, on demand, passed a fresh order on 19.9.2020 and enhanced the turnover over of ₹ 70,15,60,861/- fixing the disputed tax at ₹ 58,60,66,802. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the revisionist has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority challenging the aforesaid exaggerated demand of tax and prayed for stay d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o hesitation in holding that the order dated 28.10.2020 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down in catena of judgements in the case of ITC vs. Commissioner Appeals (MANU/UP/0515/2003:2005 (184) E.L.T. 347), followed in Honda Siel Cars vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow [2010 UFTC 1152] and KribhcoShyam Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CST (2009 UPTC 626) as well as the decision in Pennar Industries Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (MANU/SC/0160/2009 :2009 Vol. (39) NTN Page 126). The counsel for the revisionist has filed a supplementary affidavit drawing the attention of this Court to the fact that after filing of the revision and without affording reasonable time, the respondent authorities have recovered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
