75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

November 2015

20. 2015 (39) STR 972 (Ker.) Dileep Kumar V. S. vs. Union of India

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
20. 2015 (39) STR 972 (Ker.) Dileep Kumar V. S. vs. Union of India

If the assessee has alternate remedy to file appeal before the Tribunal, writ is maintainable even if there is a provision of mandatory pre-deposit before filing appeal.

Facts:

The petitioner’s demand was confirmed by adjudicating authority and first appellate authority without expressly considering the issue of jurisdiction as directed by the Hon’ble High Court. Further, the appellate authority did not consider the plea of limitation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the writ.

Held:

The petitioner had an effective alternate remedy to file appeal before appellate tribunal after payment of mandatory pre-deposit. The condition of mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeal was not so onerous to deprive the petitioner of an effective right of appeal. Comparing the present and erstwhile provisions of pre-deposit, only 10% of confirmed tax demand needed to be deposited which is fairly reasonable and imposes a lighter burden on the assessees. The writ therefore was dismissed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

IFRS Conversion in India on Fast Track

GAPs in GAAP – Related-Party Transactions