9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1979 (5) TMI 140 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Validity of deposit for appeal under section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. 2. Requirement for obtaining extension of time for deposit or alternative actions for appeal entertainability. Analysis: The case involved questions of law referred by the revising authority regarding the validity of a deposit for appeal under section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the necessity of obtaining an extension of time for deposit or alternative actions for appeal entertainability. An assessment was made for the year 1970-71, and the appellant filed an appeal on 6th May, 1975, after a waiver was granted for fifteen per cent of the tax assessed. The appellant was directed to deposit the remaining five per cent by 22nd May, 1975, but deposited it on 24th May, 1975. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred and non-compliance with the deposit requirement. The revising authority held that the appeal was filed within time but upheld the dismissal based on non-compliance with the deposit directive. The counsel for the appellant argued that the deposit made on 24th May, 1975, before the appeal limitation expired on 25th May, 1975, should validate the appeal. However, it was clarified that the requirement was to deposit twenty per cent of the assessed tax, and only five per cent was deposited, leading to a deficiency. The appellant failed to deposit the balance even at the appeal hearing on 17th November, 1975, resulting in the appeal's dismissal for non-compliance with the deposit provision. Regarding the necessity of obtaining an extension of time for deposit or depositing the entire tax amount before the appeal limitation expired, it was deemed essential for the appellant to comply. Since the appellant did not deposit the required amount within the specified time or before the appeal hearing, the dismissal of the appeal was justified. The revision was ultimately dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The order was to be communicated to the revising authority, and the petition was dismissed.
|
