TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel Shri D.N. Patel for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2The petitioner has challenged the validity of the. order dated 16-10-2003, whereby the petitioner's application for stay has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs as pre-deposit under the provisions of Section 35F of the Centra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order was in fact very harsh and, therefore, by an order dated 19-11-2003, we had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by way of pre-deposit. The said amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. In our opinion, the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs would serve the purpose and, therefore, we modify the impugned order dated 16-10-2003 to the effect that the petitioner be asked to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso sure that the prima facie observations made in the impugned order dated 16-10-2003 will not prejudicially affect the petitioner at the time when the appeal is heard. 8.We are sure that the appellate authority shall consider all contentions, which might be raised on behalf of the petitioner, including the contention that the petitioner is not a tour operator and therefore is not liable to pay....