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 impugned order confirming tax, interest and penalty should be remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner making a pre-deposit and filing a reply, and whether the bank attachment should be vacated on compliance.
Analysis: The petition challenges the order confirming demands of tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner asserts that the disputed amounts including tax, interest and penalty have already been recovered from its bank account; the respondent could not confirm recovery. The Court, following its consistent approach in similar matters, conditions interim relief on a protective pre-deposit and filing of a substantive reply to the show cause notice, directs adjustment of amounts already recovered towards the pre-deposit requirement, and requires the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order on merits after verification and hearing. The Court further provides that on compliance the bank attachment shall stand vacated and that failure to comply will permit the authority to proceed as if the petition were dismissed.
Conclusion: The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on merits subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax (adjusted by amounts already recovered) and filing a reply within the stipulated time; on such compliance the bank attachment shall be vacated. This disposition is partly in favour of the assessee.