TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner : Mr Steve Pulikkoden,. For the Respondents : Mr Ram Ochani, with Sangeeta Yadav,. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MS SONAK J) :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this Petition is inter alia to the impugned order dated 30 April 2024 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teve Pulikkoden submitted that the Petitioner's income is hardly Rs. 10,000/-per month, and if a pre-deposit of even 7.5%, which would come to approximately Rs. 62,500/-, is insisted upon, then the Petitioner would be deprived of his valuable right of Appeal. 6. Mr Steve Pulikkoden submitted that there are decisions, including the Delhi High Court's, which hold that this Court has the liberty to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 7.5% of the tax amount is a mandatory requirement for hearing of the Appeal. He submits that this issue is no longer resolved and relies upon Manjeet Singh Vs the Union of India & Ors 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11905 to support his submission. He submits that there is no error, much less a jurisdiction error, in the impugned order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, this Court should n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the Petitioner is presently financially embarrassed. He submitted that the business for which the tax liability has reason was carried out by his father, who has since expired. He submitted that the Petitioner tried to continue with the business without much success. He pointed out that the Petitioner even sold the transport vehicles and is not involved in the transport business. He ....