Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/543/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 543 of 2010
=================================================
SHREE
NATRAJ CERAMIC & CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
M/S
WADIA GHANDY &CO for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 25/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Assessee
seeks to challenge the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated
13.1.2009.
2. Following
substantial questions of law are sought to be raised :-
“i) Whether
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the repayment
schedule of loan as per the terms of contract with GIIC would prevail
over the repayment schedule under the Sales Tax Incentive scheme:
ii) Whether in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in confirming the levy of interest for delayed payment
of installment on the Appellant?
iii) Whether on
the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the
Appellate Tribunal was perverse in so far as it has ignored relevant
material on record?
3. From
the perusal of the orders under challenge and with the assistance of
the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the State
Government had issued resolution dated 18.3.1982 granting certain
reliefs in payment of sales tax. The authorities as well as Tribunal
came to the conclusion that even within such extended time period,
the appellant failed to deposit the sales tax. Benefits under the
resolution were, therefore, denied.
4. We
are of the opinion that the Tribunal has examined all the aspects of
the matter and come to a conclusion which is purely factual in
nature. Such factual conclusions not being pointed out to be
perverse, no question of law much less the substantial question of
law arises. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not make
payments within extended time permitted under the Tax Deferment
Scheme. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J. )
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J. )
sudhir
Top