- (1.) The judgment of the court was delivered by Ajay Kumar Mittal J.--The appellant has approached this court under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") against the order dated May 30, 2013 (Annexure P10) which was amended by corrigendum (Annexure A11) on August 6, 2013. The appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,82,480 as additional demand including interest of Rs. 2,15,178 for the assessment year 2001-02 vide assessment order dated February 21, 2006 (Annexure Al). However, an appeal was filed against the assessment order along with application for entertainment of appeal without payment of additional demand and stay of its recovery proceedings. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad vide order dated July 24, 2007, dismissed the appeal in default being not maintainable as the appellant had failed to comply with the interim order dated May 7, 2007 whereby the appellant was required to deposit additional demand in ten equal monthly installments beginning from May, 2007 which was payable by 20th of each month and also furnish security for the balance amount of additional demand to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority by the date of payment of first installment. The appellant being dissatisfied against the order dated July 24, 2007, filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated May 30, 2013. Feeling aggrieved against the orders dated July 24, 2007 as well as May 30, 2013 (as amended on August 6, 2013), the appellant has filed the present appeal.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-company is unable to deposit the said amount as its condition is sick and is under winding up and Rs. 4,82,480 as directed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, vide order dated May 7, 2007, could not be deposited. It is further submitted that this court may, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, reduce the amount, so that the appellant may comply with it and appeal be heard on merits.
(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the orders of the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, as well as the Tribunal.;