2021 (1) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e same is only rejected because of non-deposit of the amount required for entertaining the appeal per provisions of Section 35 F of the Finance Act, 1994, it is considered appropriate that one more opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner for depositing the amount as required by Section 35 F of the Finance Act for entertaining the statutory appeal on merits. The petitioner is permitted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rbitrary and denial of natural justice to the petitioner. IV. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to recover disputed tax till the disposal of this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He argued that the service rendered by the petitioner Society were considered as taxable service by the order i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n to the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 19148 of 2020 decided on 16.09.2020 and submits that in identical situations, this Court has permitted the petitioner therein to make pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal which was rejected on that ground. 5. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents justified the impugned order passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X