2000 (7) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Authority, Yamunanagar (respondent No. 4) held the petitioner liable to pay additional tax amounting to Rs. 1,48,644 for the assessment year 1997-98 and Rs. 1,51,698 for the assessment year 1998-99. These orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing appeals under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the State Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Central Act") along with applications under section 9(2) of the Central Act and section 39(5) of the State Act for grant of exemption from payment of the amount of tax on the premise that due to financial difficulties, it was unable to pay the amount and also on the ground that the orders passed by the Assessing Authority were ex facie illegal. The depar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed from various sources. So there is nothing abnormal with the applicant if he is having nominal capital in the business. Since it is clear that the applicant-firm is a running concern and he can pay the amount if not in lump sum, in easy instalments, I entertain the appeal subject to the condition that the applicant would deposit the amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 20,000 payable on 30th of each month and furnish surety bond up to February 29, 2000. Case to come up in due course." 4.. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the concession granted by the Appellate Authority and challenged the order dated February 17, 2000 before the Tribunal and reiterated its plea for grant of total exemption by pleading financial difficulties as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur opinion, none of the arguments urged by Shri Dogra merits acceptance. It is a settled preposition of law that while exercising power under section 9(2) of the Central Act and section 39(5) of the State Act, the appellate authority cannot delve deep into the issue of legality of order of assessment and application for exemption cannot be accepted simply because the appellant is able to show that the plea raised by it merits detailed consideration. In Emerald International Ltd. v. State of Punjab [2001] 122 STC 382 (P&H), a Full Bench interpreted section 20 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and section 39 of the State Act and laid down the following propositions: "As a sequel to our discussion on the question of law referred to us....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y. (g) The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India in rarest of the rare cases in the given facts and circumstances, can grant stay and waive the condition of pre-deposit of tax and the existing alternative remedy in such circumstances would be no ground to refuse interference." 7.. In our opinion, the propositions (d), (e) and (f) provide complete answer to the petitioner's challenge to the order passed by respondent No. 3 and the Tribunal. 8.. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by Shri Dogra relates to the jurisdiction of the High Court to stay the recovery of the tax, etc., and the observation made therein cannot be relied upon for determining the legality of an order passed....