2015 (12) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4, by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law : Whether the Tribunal erred in granting stay against recovery till the disposal of appeal by the first appellate authority? 2.The facts stated briefly are that an assessment order came to be passed in the case of the assessee for financial year 2007-2008 on 10.10.2011 raising a demand of Rs. 69,19,455/-. The respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Appeal-4, Vadodara, who directed the respondent to make pre-deposit of 10% of the total demand. Since the pre-deposit, as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, was not made, the appeal came to be dismissed. The respondent assessee carried the matter in second appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and that there is no warrant of interference by this court as the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law, as proposed or otherwise. As regards the submission regarding the Tribunal not having expressed any opinion on the question of hardship, reliance was placed upon a decision of this court in the case of JCT Limited v. State of Gujarat and others, (2011) 41 VST 312 (Guj), wherein this court has expressed the view that unlike the provisions of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, sub-section (4) of section 73 of the Act nowhere provides that the Tribunal shall consider the question of waiver of the amount of pre-deposit only in case where undue hardship is made out and in suc....