9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner's prayer to stay the demand and directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of penalty within ten days of the receipt of the order. The petitioner's case is that the Collector failed to take into account the hardship that might be caused to the petitioner if the tax had to be deposited while the appeal was pending. The petitioner has a strong prima facie case and the prayer of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 4.36 crores as on 31st March, 1987. The net worth of the Company was Rs. 2.10 crores approximately. It has further been recorded that the Company had suffered cash loss of Rs. 97.3 crores and 55.1 lakh for the years ending on 31st March, 1985 and 31st March, 1986 respectively. The Tribunal, in all probability the Collector (Appeals) however, merely stated that the contention that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of four years since order was passed by BIFR. It is also not clear as to what the Collector meant by the words "cause of hardship is backed by adverse financial position based on evidence". If the Tribunal disbelieved the statement that the petitioner had become a Sick Industry it might be called upon the petitioner to prove that by producing the evidence. Definitely the case in the petition bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
