Vishva Vijae Singh Krishnawat vs. Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion)
Held
The Court held that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioners should be permitted to avail the facility of pre-deposit to the extent of seven and a half percent of the demanded amount. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 8 lacs on April 18, 2019. Consequently, the Court directed that the concerned appellate authority shall entertain the appeal after satisfying itself of the correctness of the statement regarding the pre-deposit. The appeal is to be heard on its merits if filed within four weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can, in exceptional circumstances and considering partial deposits already made, direct appellate authorities to entertain appeals subject to verification of pre-deposit and timely filing.
Facts
The petitioners, Vishva Vijae Singh Krishnawat and Ankit Bhargava, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petition challenged an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), CGST and Central Excise, Udaipur. The specific tax period and the exact amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. However, it is mentioned that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was deposited by the petitioner on April 18, 2019. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners sought relief from the High Court regarding their appeal before the appellate authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to avail the facility of pre-deposit to the extent of seven and a half percent of the demanded amount for filing their appeal. Petitioner's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 8 lacs on April 18, 2019. This deposit was presented as a fulfillment of, or in relation to, the pre-deposit requirement for their appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Assistant Commissioner and the banks). However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position or the statutory requirement of pre-deposit was a factor in the proceedings.
Sections Cited
Not explicitly mentioned
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5205/2019
Vishva Vijae Singh Krishnawat S/o Shri Shiv Dayal Singh Krishnawat, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 12, Loonda House Naiyon-Ki-Talai, Near Terapanth Bhawan Kalaji Goraji, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
Ankit Bhargava S/o Shri Gopal Krishna Bhargava, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of 39, Vidhya Nagar, Sector-4, Hiran Magri Udaipur. ----Petitioners Versus
Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Cgst And Central Excise Commissionerate 142-B, Hiran Magri, Sector-11 Udaipur (Rajasthan).
ICICI Bank, Through Its Branch Manager 2-C, Ground Floor, Madhuban Udaipur (Rajasthan)
Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Branch Manager, Udaipur Main Branch, Opposite Town Hall, Udaipur.
HDFC Bank, Through Its Branch Manager 3, Ground Floor, Durga Nursery Road, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarad Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajvendra Sarswat Mr. Aditya Singhi Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Sarswat HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 11/07/2019
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that in the peculiar circumstances
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.