9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there be interference because demand of requirement mandate of deposit 7.5% of adjudicated amount makes the remedy of appeal illusory for his client. He hands up audited balance sheets of his client for years ended 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. It will appear therefrom, his client does not have means to deposit 7.5% of the demand. 2. He submits, notice to show cause dated 25th June, 2020 alleged short payment of tax on taxable services rendered by his client for period 1st April, 2015 onwards. His client made voluntary disclosure under the scheme for the relevant period and obtained discharge certificates. The show cause notice does not contain any material outside those disclosed by his client in obtaining the discharge certificates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion would result in distortion of Administrative / Institutional Hierarchy. d) In the absence of the Discharge certificate being revoked/cancelled by the Designated Committee, adjudication by the Central Excise officers could result in plurality of orders on the same subject conflicting with each other, which ought to be avoided." 4. Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the department. He submits, scope of the writ petition is challenge to order made by the appellate authority giving time to petitioner to put in mandated pre-deposit at 7.5% of the demand. Adjudication has been made resulting in order impugned in the appeal preferred by petitioner. The pre-deposit is to be made. Manoranjan C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e point in issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad dealing with an analogous provision, where discretion to waive pre-deposit was limited only to the extent of 25 per cent of the tax, was upheld by this Court. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi. 4. For the reasons contained in the said decisions, we hold that the impugned provisions are valid. It is, of course, clear that if gross injustice is done and it can be shown that for good reason the court should interfere, then notwithstanding the alternative remedy which may be available by way of an appeal under Section 20 or revision under Section 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
