9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax in dispute - the legislative intent as amplified in Section 112(8)(b) of the Act clearly restricts the pre-deposit amount to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute and does not speak of interest. The discretion to be exercised by the court should be in terms of the statute and, therefore, the said condition imposed by the learned Single Bench calls for interference. Appeal allowed. - T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ. For the Appellants : Ms. Ritika Kurmy, Mr. D. Dutta, Mr. Dev Agarwal For the Respondent : Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal ORDER This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against an interim order dated 25.01.2024 passed in WPA 28330 of 2023 by which the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand the provision for filing an appeal before the tribunal does not contemplate payment of 20% of the disputed interest and it is specific in stating that no appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1) of Section 112 unless the appellant has paid a sum equal to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute. 7. Therefore, there is a clear distinction drawn in the said provision restricting the pre-deposit amount to a sum equal to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute. 8. This position is further clear and amplified if we peruse clause (a) of Section 112(8) which states that no appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1) of Section 112 unless the appellants has in full, paid such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 9 SCC 686 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said and where the legislative intent is clear from the language, the Court should give effect to it. 12. As noted above the legislative intent as amplified in Section 112(8)(b) of the Act clearly restricts the pre-deposit amount to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute and does not speak of interest. 13. Therefore, we are of the view that the discretion to be exercised by the court should be in terms of the statute and, therefore, the said condition imposed by the learned Single Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
