Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Staunch Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. on 5 May, 2018

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia

       C/TAXAP/492/2018                             ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/TAX APPEAL NO. 492 of 2018

==========================================================
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
                           Versus
             STAUNCH NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

                           Date : 05/05/2018

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. This appeal is filed by the State Government  challenging  the judgment  of the  Value  Added  Tax  Tribunal. 

2. Taking   us   through   the   judgment   of   the  Tribunal,   learned   AGP   submitted   that   the   appeal  filed  by  the assessee  before  the  Tribunal  arose  out of the order of the first appellate authority  dismissing the appeal for not complying with the  pre­deposit   condition.   In   such   proceedings,   the  Tribunal decided the question of validity of the  penalty   imposed   by   the   Assessing   Officer,   which  was   not   permissible   to   the   Tribunal.   She  Page 1 of 2 C/TAXAP/492/2018 ORDER submitted   that   despite   such   law   having   been  settled  by this  Court,  the  Tribunal  referred  to  the decision of the Division Bench of this Court  in case of State of Gujarat v. Atlas Pharmachem  Industries   (P) Ltd.  and proceeded  to  decide  the  issue   on   the   ground   that   the   question   was  squarely   covered   by   the   judgment   of   the   High  Court.   Counsel   further   submitted   that   this   view  of the Tribunal is not correct. The judgment of  the   High   Court   relied   upon   by   the   Tribunal   in  case of State of Gujarat v. Jay Steel and Tubes  Traders   was   distinguishable.   The   Tribunal   had  referred   to   various   other   judgments   before  concluding the issue clearly indicating that the  entire   question   was   debatable.   In   such   a  situation, the Tribunal could not have by­passed  the question of pre­deposit.

3. Issue   Notice   for   final   disposal,   returnable  on 09.07.2018.

(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 2 of 2