9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show his inability to deposit the amount of pre-deposit. Noticing the fact that the base order has been passed exparte and thereafter, the challenge had been made to the First Appellate Authority and then there is a pendency of Second Appeal before the Second Appellate Authority, the matter would require adjudication at the hands of the Appellate Forum and at the same time the requirement of deposit of predeposits in accordance with the law as quantified by the First Appellate Authority is already deposited before the Authority concerned. Without endorsing to the action of the Tribunal the amount of Rs.7.12 Crore directed to be deposited as predeposit may not be insisted upon in wake of these glaring facts, the property which is attached is valued at Rs.61 Crore and therefore also, the revenue s interest is protected aptly. Petition allowed. - HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT APPEARANCE: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1 : Mr Akshay A Vakil(5473) For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 : Mr. Siddharth Rami, Asst. Government Pleader ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. The petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 17.01.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the total demand and the stay was granted. 3.4 The said authority canceled the stay order and passed a fresh order on 12.07.2021 and directed to pay the balance sum of total demanded amount of Rs. 26,20,35,862/-. The First Appellate Authority issued notice on 23.08.2021 in Form 503 and sought to revise the assessment. The Revision order was passed on 24.08.2021 and the total demand was enhanced to Rs.31,36,62,495/- and ordered the Assessing Authority to initiate recovery proceedings. 3.5 Thereafter, Second Appeal No. 579 of 2021 was preferred and the Revision Application No.44 of 2021 was preferred. The respondent authority initiated the recovery proceedings against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner made representation. The properties of the petitioner were attached by the respondent authorities and secured by assets worth approximately Rs. 61 Crore. 3.6 The VAT Tribunal passed an order on 17.01.2022 and directed the full amount of tax of Rs.7.12 Crore as a condition of pre-deposit to be payable within a period of one month on or before 28.02.2022. 3.7 The grievance on the part of the petitioner is that the VAT Tribunal decided the entire Revision Application and the Secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Survey No. 38/1 Paiki 1 and 38/1 Paiki 4, Godhara District Panchmahal at the total value of Rs.61,55,29,000/-. The Property under Valuation is under Lien of Bank of Baroda, Godhara Branch as per the Valuation Report Part-II. The current outstanding dues as per the said report to be repaid to the Bank on 15.06.2020 the valuer prepared this valuation report was Rs.2,86,78,674/-. It transpires from the said Part-II Valuation report that, the total area of the Commercial Complex with land and SBA (Super Built up Area) 1,20,000 sq. ft. on basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor (showroom and game zone), S.F, T. F, and F.F. land area: 1931.93 sq. meter (2310.58 sq. yd.). The outstanding dues of the Bank reduced to Rs. 42,16,294/- as per the statement prepared on 01.02.2022. There has been a substantial decrease in the outstanding dues of the Bank. It appears that the property which has been attached values to the tune of Rs. 61,55,29,000/- (rounded off). The liability of the petitioner as per the Bank statement is to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/-. The Bank has already created a lien over the property and therefore, the State is desirous of creating a second charge noticing the possible ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property which is attached is valued at Rs.61 Crore and therefore also, the revenue s interest is protected aptly. 12. The learned advocate Mr.Vakil has on instructions submitted that so long as the Second Appeal of the petitioner is decided on merit after following duly the procedure, he, for present, would not insist on the attachment to the removed. Even otherwise, the Second Appeal since is pending requires the redressal at the earliest. The dues of the Bank since have now been reduced to Rs.42,16,294/-. There is nothing to prevent the State to create a charge on the property by sending a request to the Office of Sub-Registrar for the same purpose. 13. Resultantly, these petitions are allowed quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.01.2022 of the VAT Tribunal. As rightly held by the Tribunal the asset value of approximately Rs.60 Crore is attached by the department and the payment of Rs.30,75,000/- at the stage of First Appellate Authority is already deposited. No further pre-deposit would be necessary to be imposed. 14. The Tribunal observed that petitioner had sold the motorcycles of approximately Rs.61.70 Crore in the financial year 2015-16 against the transaction, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
