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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner's refusal to admit the revision petition for non-deposit of the disputed amount was valid under section 82(2A) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the impugned order warranted interference for want of proper exercise of discretion.
Analysis: Section 82(2A) requires payment of at least twenty-five per cent of the disputed liability as a condition for entertainment of the revision, but also confers discretion to admit the application on part payment or without payment to mitigate undue hardship, subject to reasons being recorded in writing and security being furnished. That discretion is not mechanical. It must be exercised judiciously, on relevant considerations, and by a reasoned order that shows application of mind to the facts and the hardship pleaded by the dealer. An order that merely insists on deposit without disclosing any proper consideration of the request for stay or relaxation is vulnerable as arbitrary and as a non-judicial exercise of discretion.
Conclusion: The refusal to admit the revision petition was interfered with. The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount and furnish the bank guarantee within the stipulated time, after which the revision was to be heard and decided in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of securing reconsideration of the revision on compliance with conditions, and the authority was required to proceed by a lawful and reasoned exercise of discretion rather than by a mechanical insistence on deposit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute conditions admission of a revision on partial pre-deposit but also empowers relaxation to mitigate hardship, the authority must exercise that discretion judicially by recording reasons and considering relevant circumstances; a mechanical refusal is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
TaxTMI 
