9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H KUMAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR For the Appellants : By Sri. Neeralgi Jeevanbabu Jagadish, Advocate For the Respondent : By Shri. V. Raghuraman, Senior Advocate For Shri. Bhanu Murthy J.S., Advocate JUDGMENT P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., 1. This intra-Court appeal by the Revenue is directed against Order dated 21st December, 2020 passed in W.P. No. 8254/2020. 2. Heard Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.27,66,646/- and came to the conclusion that 50% of the demand (Rs.1,77,06,985/-) equivalent to Rs.88,53,492/- earlier deposited, has already been appropriated. Accordingly, the relief was denied under the scheme and passed the order as per Annexure-B, making an estimated amount payable at Rs.60,86,846.50. Challenging the said order, assessee filed the Writ Petition No.8254/2020 contending in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, assessee is required to deposit 50% of the disputed amount. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable because the amount which was not subject matter of the claim under consideration by the Designated Committee has been taken into account. Amplifying his arguments, he submitted that what was the consideration before the Designated Committee was the amount due by the assessee namely Rs.1,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e carefully considered the contentions and perused the records. 9. Undisputed facts of the case are, assessee had indeed deposited Rs.2,52,46,749/-. The show-cause notice demand is for Rs.1,77,06,985/-. 50% of the same comes to Rs.88,53,492/-. Admittedly, assessee's amount of Rs.92,00,000/- is already with the Revenue. 10. It is the contention of Shri. Neeralgi that the Designated Committee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
