2024 (10) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JJ. APPEARANCES For the Petitioner : 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 al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded in Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Mr Steve 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 Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel for the Respondents, submits that a pre-deposit 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 Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nded within some reasonable period. Mr Steve Pulikkoden has submitted 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 transpor....