2016 (8) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....016. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is private limited and registered dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act,2003 as well as under the Central Tax Act,1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling water treatment plant, water purifier and trading of ferrous and nonferrous metal, iron and steel etc. The petitioner had purchased the goods from the registered dealers during the period of 2010-11 and the vendors had issued the tax invoices to the petitioner wherein, the tax under the VAT Act has been separately charged. Said purchases and sales made by the petitioner were contained in the return filed under the VAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act and while submitting the ret....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessing Officer has not considered and granted credit of the said amount paid by the petitioner and consequentially, the interest has also been wrongly charged. In the course of said first appeal, on the issue of penalty also it was specifically contended that in the background of this fact, the penalty does not deserve to be imposed upon and for that purpose, the petitioner has relied upon some of the decisions and thereby, requested the to admit the appeal without insisting for any pre-deposit. 4. The case of the petitioner is that though the outstanding tax liability as per the reassessment order had already been paid, still however the first appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 crore which, accord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he VAT Tribunal that outstanding tax amount as determined by the Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment order has already been paid and therefore, it was pointed out before the VAT Tribunal that no further amount ought to have been directed to be paid. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned orders requiring the petitioner to fruther deposit an amount is nothing but a clear example of arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel also submitted that at the best, in view of provision of sub-section (4) of Section 73 of the VAT Act, what is required to be deposited by way of pre-deposit is only on the amount of tax and not interest and ultimately, contended that both the authorities have misdirected ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss to pay further amount of Rs. 50 lacs as reflected in the order dated 5.5.2016. Said order dated 10.6.2016 is taken on record. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having perused the orders passed by the authorities below, it appears to this Court that ultimately the orders impugned reflect the payment of total demand of tax and interest which comes to Rs. 39,38,927/- and Rs. 35,45,034/- totaling around approximately Rs. 75 lacs. Therefore, keeping all the rights open of the petitioner, if the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs. 49,66,903/-, we deem it proper to direct the petitioner to pay the balance amount. Meaning thereby an amount (-) Rs. 49,66,903/-, so that ultimately total amount of ....