9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the averments made in the affidavit, it could be seen that the petitioner-Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Compani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statements obtained from the Directors and Staff of the petitioner-Company and also from the persons of Sujana Group of Companies, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, demanding Rs. 43,28,881/-, for which a detailed reply was given. Not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner, the second respondent confirmed the demand for a sum of Rs. 37,64,245/- and a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appeal was not decided on merits. The petitioner had the right of appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly he preferred the appeal, but the same was dismissed not on the merits of the matter. The condition to deposit the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was onerous, out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited. Under such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal has got to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in reply by the petitioner, but the second respondent confirmed the demand of a sum of Rs. 37,64,245/- and a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- by an order dated 27-6-2003. In view of the right of appeal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal at the earliest imposed a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the respondent-department, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
