2018 (11) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) on the petitioner's depositing an amount of Rs. 33.64 Lakh out of a total demand inclusive of interest at Rs. 1.90 Crores. 2. The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that for the period from 2008-2009 assessment was completed on 30th March, 2013 denying the appellant's claim of input tax credit. This resulted in an aggregate demand of Rs. 1.90 Crores (inclusive of interest). 3. Being aggrieved with the assessment order dated 30th March, 2013 the petitioner had filed a First Appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals). In the first Appeal a part payment was ordered by the First Appellate Authority on 11th June, 2014 for stay of the assessment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order was neither complied with by the petitioner nor was it challenged before any higher forum. 8. Mr. Thakar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal would require interference. This as it is not taken into account the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries VAT Second Appeal No.195 of 2015 decided on 20/10/2017. Besides, it is submitted that the cause of action in this appeal is different from that when the earlier order was passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it should have considered the submission on merits and not dismissed it as on account of not complying with its earlier order. Besides, Mr. Thakar submits that ....