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 direction requiring pre-deposit of 40% of the tax and 20% of the penalty, as a condition for hearing the appeal, was justified where the transporter's liability had not been properly found and the statutory presumption under the Delhi VAT Act had not been invoked in the orders under challenge.
Analysis: The authorities proceeded on the assumption that the transporter was responsible for VAT liability and relied on Section 3(9) of the Delhi VAT Act, 2004, to support a presumption that goods were owned by the transporter where the consignor or owner was not verifiable. However, the orders passed by the authorities did not actually cite or apply that presumption. In the absence of a properly recorded basis for fastening liability on the transporter, the requirement of pre-deposit as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal was held to be unwarranted.
Conclusion: The direction to pre-deposit 40% of the tax liability and 20% of the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit condition for hearing a tax appeal cannot be sustained where the underlying liability is not properly founded in the impugned orders and the statutory presumption relied upon has not been applied.