1970 (7) TMI 74 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Revision petitions under section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 challenging the order of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the requirement of furnishing security for appeals without payment of tax and penalty.

Analysis:
The judgment involves three revision petitions by a common assessee challenging the order of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the requirement of furnishing security for appeals without payment of tax and penalty. The assessee was assessed to sales tax for three years and preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner, seeking to entertain the appeals without payment of tax and penalty and stay of recovery. The Deputy Commissioner ordered the assessee to pay part of the tax assessed and furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining amount. The Tribunal modified the order by directing the assessee to furnish a bank guarantee for the entire tax amount and penalty, rejecting the offer of security of immovable properties. The judgment discusses the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act, emphasizing the discretion of the appellate authority in entertaining appeals without payment of tax and penalty but on furnishing security. The judgment highlights the importance of exercising discretion judiciously and considering the sufficiency of security offered by the assessee.

The judgment interprets the relevant provisions and rules, emphasizing the need for the appellate authority to consider the adequacy of security offered by the assessee. It discusses the relaxation of stringent conditions by an amendment to the Act, allowing appeals upon furnishing proof of payment of disputed tax and penalty. The judgment underscores the requirement for the appellate authority to exercise discretion in granting stay of recovery pending appeal, ensuring the security offered is sufficient. The judgment provides guidance on the factors to be considered when assessing the adequacy of security, including the nature of the property offered, clear title, and valuation reports. It stresses the importance of the appellate authority making reasoned decisions and not arbitrarily insisting on bank guarantees, especially when the appellant may not have access to such guarantees.

The judgment distinguishes a previous case relied upon by the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for the appellate authority to act judiciously in directing the form of security. It criticizes the Deputy Commissioner for arbitrarily requiring a bank guarantee without considering the offer of immovable property as security. The judgment allows the revision petitions, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and directs the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the assessee's applications in light of the judgment. The assessee is awarded costs, and the judgment highlights the importance of exercising discretion in line with judicial principles when determining the sufficiency of security offered by appellants.