Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Constitutional validity of Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, regarding the waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of surety bond or bank guarantee, was examined. While the appellate authority lacks the power to waive the condition, the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct the appeal to be heard without insisting on the precondition. The requirement of an irrevocable bank guarantee or surety bond is an onerous condition. The petitioners would be unable to submit security in the form of a surety bond as they lack property worth the said amount. A person cannot be left remediless. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, is directed to hear the appeals without insisting on the precondition u/s 33(5) and decide on merits. The appellate authority cannot waive the pre-deposit required u/s 33(5). The Haryana Tax Tribunal's order upholding the refusal to entertain the appeal without surety bonds or pre-deposit is not illegal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
