Full Text
Translation output
$-10
* IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ST APPL. I3I2OII
CM APPL,II7I8I2OII
M/s G.K.Kingsway Motor Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Through:H.L.Tanej a, Advocate ..... Appellants
* IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ST APPL. I3I2OII
CM APPL,II7I8I2OII
M/s G.K.Kingsway Motor Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Through:H.L.Tanej a, Advocate ..... Appellants
VERSUS
The Commissioner, f'rade & Taxes & Anr. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K.Babar with Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocates.
Through: Mr.A.K.Babar with Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JTJSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
IION'BLE MR. JUSTICX] RAJIV SHAKDIIER
ORDEIT
'/" 08.06.2011
This is an appeal against order dated 8tl' April, 2011 passed by the Appellate 'Iribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi (in short "Tribunal"). The irnpugned order permits the appeal to.be listed on the condition that the appellants' deposit a sum of I{s. 2 lacs. Tliis is a condition precedent fol hearing the appeal on merits.
The learned counsel fol the appellant submits that by imposing such a condition the
Tribunal has en'ed inasmuch as it has taken into acconnt the interest in addition to tax and penalty imposed on the appellants. It is contended that under Section 43(5) of the Delhi Value
Added Tax Act, 2004, the condition precedent of pre-deposit can include only tax and penalty and not interest.
Leamed counsel for the appellant also submits that the impugned order does not take into consideration the amount of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited by the appellant at earlier stage.
There are also thc argrunents advanced on merits inter alia pertaining to the limitation.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties our opinion is as follows. i
2011:DHC:18459-DB
IION'BLE MR. JUSTICX] RAJIV SHAKDIIER
ORDEIT
'/" 08.06.2011
This is an appeal against order dated 8tl' April, 2011 passed by the Appellate 'Iribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi (in short "Tribunal"). The irnpugned order permits the appeal to.be listed on the condition that the appellants' deposit a sum of I{s. 2 lacs. Tliis is a condition precedent fol hearing the appeal on merits.
The learned counsel fol the appellant submits that by imposing such a condition the
Tribunal has en'ed inasmuch as it has taken into acconnt the interest in addition to tax and penalty imposed on the appellants. It is contended that under Section 43(5) of the Delhi Value
Added Tax Act, 2004, the condition precedent of pre-deposit can include only tax and penalty and not interest.
Leamed counsel for the appellant also submits that the impugned order does not take into consideration the amount of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited by the appellant at earlier stage.
There are also thc argrunents advanced on merits inter alia pertaining to the limitation.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties our opinion is as follows. i
2011:DHC:18459-DB
this
The issue of limitation need not be decided at this stage as according to us aspect would really touch the merits of the matter'
As regards the coldition imposed for deposit of Rs 2 lacs according to us same is reasonable even if only tax and penalty is taken into account as the same is more than Rs. 8 lacs. We find no merit in the appeal, there being no substantial question of law. The appeal is disrnissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks extension of time to deposit the sum of I{s.2 lacs. The request is granted; the appellant is at liberty to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2 lacs within two weeks from today. On deposit being made within the said period, the appeal will be disposed of on merits'
The appeal is disrnissed but in the above terms'
S. RAVINDRA BI{AT
(VACATION JUDGIT) the
-)/
(1-tl,e$-
't:\
\
RAJIV SIIAKDHER
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 08,2011
Bisht
2011:DHC:18459-DB
The issue of limitation need not be decided at this stage as according to us aspect would really touch the merits of the matter'
As regards the coldition imposed for deposit of Rs 2 lacs according to us same is reasonable even if only tax and penalty is taken into account as the same is more than Rs. 8 lacs. We find no merit in the appeal, there being no substantial question of law. The appeal is disrnissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks extension of time to deposit the sum of I{s.2 lacs. The request is granted; the appellant is at liberty to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2 lacs within two weeks from today. On deposit being made within the said period, the appeal will be disposed of on merits'
The appeal is disrnissed but in the above terms'
S. RAVINDRA BI{AT
(VACATION JUDGIT) the
-)/
(1-tl,e$-
't:\
\
RAJIV SIIAKDHER
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 08,2011
Bisht
2011:DHC:18459-DB
JUDGMENT