1979 (11) TMI 242 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for stay of recovery of tax without recording reasons.
2. Challenge to assessment order and pending appeal.
3. Imposition of conditions on stay order without proper reasoning.

Analysis:

The High Court of Rajasthan addressed the issue of rejecting an application for the stay of tax recovery without providing reasons. The Court referred to the proviso under section 11 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the necessity for recording reasons for such rejections. The Court found that the Additional Commissioner failed to provide any reasons for not granting a full stay of the tax amount, as mandated by law. The Court highlighted that the order was passed on a cyclostyled form without any specific reasoning, leading to a violation of the legal requirement for recording reasons. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Additional Commissioner to pass a fresh order in compliance with the law.

Regarding the challenge to the assessment order and the pending appeal, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals). As the appeal was pending, the Court declined to delve into the merits of the assessment order, stating that the petitioner could contest the assessment order before the appellate authority. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeal process.

The Court also addressed the issue of imposing conditions on the stay order without adequate reasoning. The petitioner contended that the Additional Commissioner erred in imposing a condition requiring the deposit of the remaining tax amount within a specified period. However, since no reasons were provided for not granting a full stay, the Court decided to remand the case back to the Additional Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Court refrained from determining the validity of imposing such conditions, leaving it to the Additional Commissioner to decide on the matter.

In conclusion, the Court partially allowed the application, setting aside the previous order and instructing the Additional Commissioner to reevaluate the stay application with proper reasoning. The Court directed the Additional Commissioner to dispose of the matter within three months and scheduled a hearing date for the parties to present their case. Additionally, the Court ordered a stay on the recovery of the tax amount until the fresh decision by the Additional Commissioner, provided the petitioner appeared for the hearing as agreed.