1997 (8) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the writ application or the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties, production of relevant records was directed. Records were produced by the learned counsel for the Revenue for our perusal. The relevant orders as appear from the records passed by the authorities including that of the Commissioner read as follows: "Preceding notes. The first appeal order dated January 16, 1995 from which refund flows is the subject-matter of second appeal filed by the State.   In view of the amount of security available with the department, in case the second appeal order goes in favour of the State it would be difficult for collection of sales tax dues now claimed towards refund by the dealer. Thus the nature of case attracts the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ossibility of the dealer shifting the place of business outside the State, his credibility in the market was not known, the security deposit available with the department is only Rs. 3,500 the details of movable and immovable property of the dealer was not available with the department and his business antecedents were such that it might not pay the dues, if called upon to do so subsequently."   3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the order is indefensible as the requirements of section 14-D of the Act have not been complied with. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue that mention of withholding under section 14-D of the Act is sufficient. 4.. For bringing in operation of section 14-D of the Act, conditio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6] Merely filing of appeal or pendency of further proceeding under the Act cannot per se be a ground for withholding refund. Additionally, the Commissioner has to be of the opinion that grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the Revenue. 6.. It is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for Revenue that petitioner is one of most reputed concerns of the country. His stand is that creditworthiness is different concept from reputation as a leading concern. It is also fairly accepted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to show its creditworthiness. It is true as pointed by the learned counsel for Revenue, a pre-decisional hearing is not warranted when the Commissioner proposes to act in terms of section 14-D of the Act.....