TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o admit this petition, call for the records of the case and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction of like nature should not be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2019 issued/passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Guwahati, Assam and as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Direction and/or order should not be issued declaring section 79(5) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, in so far as the same fails to provide discretion to the Appellate Authority for staying, reducing or waiving off pre-deposit, as unconstitutional and ultra vires and why a writ in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Provided that such authority may stay the recovery of the full or part of the balance amount of tax, interest and penalty, till disposal of the appeal." 4. Learned counsel has fairly drawn attention of the Court towards decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with Civil Appeal No.7358/2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27072/2016 (M/s Technimont Private Limited -Vs- State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on 18.09.2019. We having gone through the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Technimont Private Limited (supra) find that the following 2(two) relevant issues have been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:- "(b) Whether the condition of 25% pre-deposit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 19. It is well settled that stamp duty is a tax, and hardship is not relevant in construing taxing statutes which are to be construed strictly. As often said, there is no equity in a tax vide CIT v. V.MR.P. Firm Muar. If the words used in a taxing statute are clear, one cannot try to find out the intention and the object of the statute. Hence the High Court fell in error in trying to go by the supposed object and intendment of the Stamp Act, and by seeking to find out the hardship which will be caused to a party by the impugned amendment of 1998. 20. In Partington v. Attorney General Lord Cairns observed as under:" 'If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23. In Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad this Court referred to its earlier decision in Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs wherein this Court observed : (Vijay Prakash case, SCC p. 406, para 9) '9. Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasijudicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant.' While dealing with the submission that in terms of said proviso, no relief could be granted even in cases where the requirement of pre-deposit may result in great prejudice, this Court went on to obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me up for consideration in terms of which no revision application could be entertained unless it was accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of 50% of the recoverable amount. Relying on the earlier decisions of this Court including in P. Laxmi Devi the challenge was rejected and the thought expressed in P. Laxmi Devi was repeated in Har Devi Asnani as under:- '27. In Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi10 this Court, while upholding the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act introduced by Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 8 of 1998, observed: (SCCp. 737, para 29) '29. In our opinion in this situation it is always open to a party to file a writ petition challenging the exorbitant demand made by the regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court of India makes it evident that the requirement of law under Section 79(5) of the Act of 2003 would not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that such pre-deposit cannot be said to be onerous, harsh or unreasonable. In such circumstances, the prayer in that regard is rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the financial condition of the petitioner is so weak that he would be unable to make the deposit, as required under Section 79(5) of the Act of 2003. In such circumstances, the amount be reduced or waived. It has been projected before this Court that in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Technimont Private Limited (supra)....