2019 (1) TMI 1299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Second Appeal No.485 of 2018 as well as the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as "the first appellate authority"), and seeks restoration of the appeal before the appellate authority. 4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that pursuant to a spot visit at the business premises of the petitioner by the officers of the Commercial Tax Department on 21.05.2009....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd had stayed the recovery proceedings on condition of appellant depositing Rs. 30,00,000/- within one month. It was submitted that thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the order, by the impugned order dated 11.9.2018, the Tribunal has dismissed the second appeal for want of compliance of pre-deposit. It was submitted that vide the order dated 10.5.2018, the Tribunal had admitted the appeal and the deposit was to be made only for stay of recovery proceedings and was not a condition precedent for admission of the appeal and, therefore, the appeal could not have been dismissed for want of compliance of predeposit. 5.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner has also invited the attention of the court to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....transfer, alienate, sell or create any encumbrance over the said land. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the first appellate authority had directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand, whereas the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to deposit a nominal amount of rupees thirty lakhs as compared to the demand and hence, there is no warrant for interference with the impugned orders. 7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. As is evident from the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal had admitted the second appeal and had directed the petitioner to deposit rupees thirty lak....