2006 (6) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4/2004 dated 28-12-2004, this petitioner has brought forth this writ petition, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the averments made in the affidavit, it could be seen tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpanies to the tune of Rs. 30.0 lakhs was not disputed by the department. Basing on the statements obtained from the Directors and Staff of the petitioner-Company and also from the persons of Sujana Group of Companies, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, demanding Rs. 43,28,881/-, for which a detailed reply was given. Not satisfied with the reply given by the petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....present writ petition. 6. Arguing for the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the appeal was not decided on merits. The petitioner had the right of appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly he preferred the appeal, but the same was dismissed not on the merits of the matter. The condition to deposit the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was onerous, out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orum namely the Tribunal. In the instant case, there was a show cause notice, which resulted in reply by the petitioner, but the second respondent confirmed the demand of a sum of Rs. 37,64,245/- and a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- by an order dated 27-6-2003. In view of the right of appeal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal at the earliest imposed a condition t....