TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies deposit rules in tax appeal, allows further proceedings on adjustment/refund issues.</h1> <h3>Ranjit Impex Versus Appellate Dy. Commissioner And Another</h3> Ranjit Impex Versus Appellate Dy. Commissioner And Another - 2013 (10) SCC 655, 2013 (11) SCALE 543 Issues:1. Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 730 of 2011.2. Return of Memorandum of Appeal by the appellate authority due to non-compliance with deposit requirements under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.3. Interpretation of the term 'entertain' under Section 51 of the Act and the issue of adjustment of the amount due to the appellant from the department for deposit purposes.4. Justification of the Division Bench's conclusion regarding the consequences of non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements.5. Proper adjustment of the amount demanded by the first appellate authority under Section 51 of the Act.6. Direction for the appellant to deposit the required amount by a specified date for the appeal to be heard and disposed of on merits, with the option to initiate independent proceedings for adjustment/refund.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 730 of 2011, where the Division Bench declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order in W.P. No. 2974 of 2011. The appellant's Memorandum of Appeal was returned by the appellate authority for failure to deposit the required sum under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Single Judge directed compliance with all requirements for appeal registration and disposal by the appellate authority. The Writ Appeal raised issues regarding the term 'entertain' in Section 51 and the adjustment of the amount due from the department for deposit purposes.The Division Bench held that the appeal should not be entertained if the deposit conditions are not met but should proceed to be considered on merits. The appellant contested the proper adjustment of the amount demanded by the first appellate authority. The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench's conclusion on the consequences of non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements. The Court directed the appellant to deposit the required amount by a specified date for the appeal to be heard and disposed of on merits, allowing for independent proceedings on adjustment/refund matters.The Court set aside the finding of proper adjustment by the Department but did not express an opinion on the appellant's claim. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the Division Bench's order accordingly. No costs were awarded in the matter. The judgment clarified the requirements for appeal consideration, deposit compliance, and the option for independent proceedings on adjustment/refund issues, ensuring a fair and just resolution in the case.
TaxTMI 