2012 (3) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order dated 4-11-2011 partially stayed the demand against the petitioner company to an extent of Rs. 56,12,987/- but required the petitioner to deposit the remainder demand in a sum of Rs. 1,75,63,135/- during the pendency of the appeal. Aggrieved of the interim order dated 4-11-2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) the petitioner preferred a further appeal under Section 83 of the 2003 Act before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which vide order dated 25-1-2012, even while staying the remainder demand of Rs. 1,75,63,135/- made it conditional on the petitioner company furnishing a bank guarantee for the said amount and simultaneously required the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal against the order dated 19-9-2011 p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e would be ready to argue the appeal finally on that day itself. Counsel for respondent however submits that in view of the failure of the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee in terms of the order dated 25-1-2012, passed by the Tax Board, the bank accounts of the petitioner firm have already been attached on 9-3-2012. He further submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 25-1-2012 passed by the Tax Board which order is a final order, and the petitioner should have instead filed a revision petition in terms of 2003 Act, instead and as such in view of an alternative remedy being available to the petitioner under the governing statute, the writ petition should be dismissed. Heard learned co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner (Appeals) Commercial Tax Department, Ajmer at the first instance stayed the recovery of an amount of Rs. 56,12,987/- with the direction to the petitioner to furnish bond in Form VAT-64 with two sureties acceptable to the concerned officer to the extent of Rs. 56,12,987/-. In respect of the same assessee and in respect to the same order of assessment the Tax Board Ajmer in respect of remainder amount Rs. 1,75,63,135/- even while staying the recovery has made it conditional on the assessee  submitting security by way of bank guarantee. No reason has been given by the Tax Board Ajmer for overlooking the statutory option to the petitioner to furnish security by way of bond in the Form VAT-64 with two sureties. The order dated 25-1....