M/S Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Revisionist is aggrieved by an order passed by the Tribunal dated 22nd December, 2016, in so far as it requires the revisionist to deposit 30% of the disputed amount of tax, during the pendency of its appeal before the first appellate authority.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that during the course of assessment proceedings, the revisionist had prayed for certain additional time to submit required documents and certificates, in order to demonstrate that revisionist is entitled to exemption, but such request was turned down, and the assessing authority has proceeded to pass an order of assessment against the revisionist. It is pointed out that it has already deposited about Rs.47 crores towards the admitted tax payable, and the dispute survives in respect of raising of additional demand to the extent of Rs.12 and odd crores. It is stated that revisionist has already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount. It is also contended that the appeal filed by the revisionist raises substantial questions, and even otherwise, the revisionist intends to bring on record materials to demonstrate that requisite certificates and documents are available with the company for establishing that no further amount of tax is payable, and in such circumstances, the appeal itself is liable to be heard. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the first appellate authority to decide the appeal, on merits, without insisting upon the revisionist to deposit any further amount towards tax.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue does not dispute that Rs.47 crores has been deposited by the revisionist towards admitted tax for the assessment year, and in respect of the disputed amount also, the revisionist has deposited 10% of the amount. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally by the first appellate authority.

Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, interest of justice would be served in directing the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal finally, on merits, provided the revisionist furnishes security other than cash and bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, in respect of balance 20% amount of the tax demanded. In case such security is furnished to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within two weeks from today, the first appellate authority shall proceed to dispose of the appeal finally, on merits, without insisting upon the revisionist to deposit any further amount.

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.