AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Usha, J.
Challenge in this writ appeal at the instance of the petitioner in O.P. 18014 of 1999 is against the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge in C.M.P. 29514 of 1999 in O.P. 18014 of 1999. In the above order, the learned Single Judge had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 62 lakhs towards tax demanded within three weeks from the date of the order. On that condition, recovery proceedings were stayed for a period of one month.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Tribunal, copy of which is produced as Ext. P23, where the Tribunal had directed the assessing officer to estimate the net profit at 15 per cent of the total turnover of the contract, is under challenge in appeal before this court. Therefore, the learned Judge should not have directed the appellant to deposit an amount which will be due as tax on the basis of the direction given by the Tribunal.
We find no merit in this contention. By applying 15 per cent as found by the Tribunal, calculation has been made by the chartered accountant of the assessee, copy of which is produced as Ext. P24 in the original petition. As per Ext- P24, tax due would come to Rs. 49,39,089. Admittedly, the operation of the order passed by the Tribunal under Ext. P23 is not stayed by this court in the appeal. That being so, the petitioner-appellant is bound to deposit the tax as per the calculation contained in Ext, P24. The learned Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit only such amount. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Single judge. The order cannot be termed as one without jurisdiction or vitiated by any perversity. In the result, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed.