JULY 14, 2014

By Anand Mishra, Advocate, AMLEGALS 

ON a reading of the proposed section 35F of the CEA, 1944, it is seen that -

++ Undue hardship is no more a criteria

++ Pre-deposit mandatory even if the case has merits

++ Financial hardships will not help

++ Complete waiver will be a thing of past

++ Interest is no more included under the ambit of pre deposit

Incidentally, somewhat similar provisions exist in section 62(5) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 and which reads –

(5) No appeal shall be entertained, unless such appeal is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the prior minimum payment of twenty-five per cent of the total amount of additional demand, penalty and interest, if any.

" Explanation: - For the purposes of this sub-section "additional demand" means any tax imposed as a result of any order passed under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956).

This provision has been challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. & Dishnet Wireless Ltd. and the matter is sub-judice.

We may, therefore, see a similar challenge to the proposed provisions of section 35F too.