TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate. ORDER C.M.No.15724/2014 This is an application for condonation of delay of 100 days in filing of the appeal. We notice that initially the applicant herein had filed a writ petition, which, vide order dated 4th August, 2014, was directed to be registered and re-numbered as an appeal. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that he has no objection in case the application is allowed. In vie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disposal today itself. 3. The appellant was subjected to assessment under Section 23(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 for the assessment period 2002-03 vide order dated 31st March, 2004. The additional tax payable by the appellant was assessed at Rs. 33,13,396/-. 4. In the first appeal, Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20th October, 2009, passed an order of remand recording that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant that these goods would be sold for consideration. As the goods were first-point goods and the appellant was selling them in Delhi for the first time, it was duty of the appellant to ensure that state received its legitimate share of revenue. While the appellant had every right to give discount to its customers, he had no right to take away the revenue of the state. Hence the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Appellate Tribunal and on 26th February, 2014 and when the order, disposing of the application under Section 43(5), was passed. 6. When there was no demand, which was due and payable, we do not think that the appellant was required to pay 25% of the "disputed amount". The reason is simple, because when no demand was in existence and payable, the question of waiver of pre-deposit would not a....