9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner neither preferred the Commercial Tax Officer nor before the Appellate Board and raised the issue of limitation. Once the petitioner has preferred the first appeal, therefore, the petitioner can also prefer VATA before this Court. The petitioner submits that since the petitioner did not raise the issue of limitation before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the petitioner is precluded from raising this issue in VATA. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2014 (9) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that no writ lies if the efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available. Petition dismissed. - Hon'ble Shri J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31.03.2017 under Section 52 of the M.P. VAT Act regarding claim of incorrect credit in respect of challan for demand of Rs. 8,50,502/-. The Assessing Officer passed the final order on 17.12.2020, against which an appeal was filed which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2022. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed, which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2024. 05. In the proceedings initiated under Section 52 of the M.P. VAT Act, respondent No.3 vide order dated 08.02.2021 imposed penalty of Rs. 29,76,757/-, equal to 3.5 times tax alleged to be concealed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal before the Appellate Authority and Revisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax which came to be dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer and submitted an explanation which was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 29,76,757/-, against the said order, the petitioner neither preferred the Commercial Tax Officer nor before the Appellate Board and raised the issue of limitation. Once the petitioner has preferred the first appeal, therefore, the petitioner can also prefer VATA before this Court. 10. Shri P.M Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner did not raise the issue of limitation before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the petitioner is precluded from raising this issue in VATA. Hence, the petitioner ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
