Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in refusing waiver or relaxation of the pre-deposit requirement under section 9(1-B)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and whether the Tribunal's affirmance of that refusal was sustainable.
Analysis: The provision made deposit of twenty per cent of the assessed tax a condition for entertainment of the appeal, but the proviso empowered the appellate authority to waive or relax that requirement for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in writing. That discretion had to be exercised objectively, reasonably and fairly, having regard to the assessee's capacity to pay, the quantum of disputed tax and other relevant circumstances. The assessee placed affidavits showing closure of business, lack of assets and financial hardship, and those assertions were not effectively investigated. The Tribunal's order gave no adequate reasons and failed to deal with the material before it in a proper perspective.
Conclusion: The refusal to grant waiver or relaxation was unsustainable; the Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeals were directed to be restored and decided afresh in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded to the extent of securing a remand for fresh adjudication of the waiver applications and the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory discretion to waive a pre-deposit must be exercised on relevant considerations, by a reasoned and non-arbitrary order, and failure to do so warrants interference and remand.