2017 (4) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal, Ahmedabad dated 9/3/2017 passed in Second Appeal Nos.37 and 38 of 2017, by which, against total demand of Rs. 1,32,89,664/- (excluding interest and penalty), the learned tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit 10% of the total demand (excluding interest and penalty) as pre- deposit and on such deposit, remaining demand has been stayed, the appellant - dealer has preferred the present appeals with the following proposed questions of law : "(i). Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in directing the appellant to pay pre-deposit for staying the recovery proceedings especially in light of the facts that the previously in the appellant's own case for the same assessment year, Hon'ble Gujarat High ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 waived pre-deposit and granted unconditional stay and directed the learned tribunal to decide the appeal on merits and therefore, thereafter, in the second round of litigation the learned tribunal is not justified in directing the appellant to deposit 10% of the total demand (excluding interest and penalty). 2.01. Mr.S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that the entire demand is based on the cancellation of the registration of the dealers from whom purchases were made by the appellant with retrospective effect. It is submitted that all the purchases were made by the appellant prior to actual date of orders of cancellation of registration of such vendors - dealers. It is submitted th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ations of the dealers from whom the appellant made the purchases, were cancelled ab-initio. However, the appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove genuineness of the transactions with such dealers from whom the appellant made purchases and whose registration came to be cancelled ab-initio. It is true that sometimes, a dealer many not be denied Input Tax Credit on the ground that the registration of the dealer from whom a dealer purchased the goods, has been cancelled ab-initio and when the purchaser dealer purchased the goods, registration of the vendor dealer was in existence. However, still there is a requirement under the law and as per the decision of this Court, for claiming Input Tax Credit on such transactions, dealer is requ....