TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether pre-deposit of duty could be insisted upon when the show cause notice proposed only penalty and contained no quantified demand of duty; (ii) Whether pre-deposit of penalty and recovery thereof could be stayed when there was, prima facie, no default in payment of duty under the fortnightly payment system.
Issue (i): Whether pre-deposit of duty could be insisted upon when the show cause notice proposed only penalty and contained no quantified demand of duty.
Analysis: The earlier administrative order withdrawing the fortnightly payment facility did not raise any quantified demand of duty. The subsequent show cause notice, which initiated the present proceedings, superseded that earlier order and proposed only penalty. Since no duty demand was contained in the notice, the demand of duty confirmed by the lower authorities could not form the basis for insisting upon pre-deposit at this stage.
Conclusion: The requirement of pre-deposit of duty was not justified and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether pre-deposit of penalty and recovery thereof could be stayed when there was, prima facie, no default in payment of duty under the fortnightly payment system.
Analysis: The penalty was founded on an alleged default in payment of duty for the second fortnight of May 2001. The material placed showed that the duty was paid on the next working day because the due date was a bank holiday. On that basis, no prima facie default was made out for the relevant period, and the penalty proposal lacked immediate support.
Conclusion: Pre-deposit of penalty was also waived and recovery thereof was stayed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, with complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for both duty and penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: When the show cause notice does not propose a demand of duty and the alleged penalty default is not made out even prima facie, pre-deposit and recovery should be waived at the interim stage.
TaxTMI 
