1984 (8) TMI 308 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of demand for payment of a specified percentage of assessed tax before entertaining appeals.
- Interpretation of the proviso to section 20 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.
- Exercise of quasi-judicial power by the appellate authority.
- Concession made by the Government Advocate regarding the deposit amount.
- Suspension of operation of relevant orders by the Tribunal and the appellate authority.
- Direction for expeditious disposal of appeals.
- Non-precedent status of the decision regarding the deposit amount.

Analysis:

The judgment of the High Court addressed a series of civil rules involving the validity of a demand made by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes for a specified percentage of the tax assessed before entertaining appeals. The petitioners challenged this demand, arguing that there was no legal provision empowering the appellate authority to make such a demand. The Government Advocate contended that the power to demand payment could be exercised under the proviso to section 20 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. The Court examined the relevant provision and emphasized that the appellate authority's discretion to determine the amount of tax to be paid by the assessee must be exercised judiciously and reasonably, following established legal principles from various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.

The Court clarified that the power under the proviso to section 20 is quasi-judicial in nature and should not be exercised arbitrarily. It highlighted the importance of providing reasons for demanding a specific percentage of the tax assessed and ensuring that the exercise of power is fair and reasonable. In this case, the Court found that the demand for 65% and 70% of the tax assessed lacked supporting reasons. However, due to a concession made by the Government Advocate, the Court directed that the appeals would be heard on a specified date if the petitioners deposited 15% of the tax assessed, as desired by the State Government for early disposal of the cases and tax realization.

The Court, without interfering with the orders of the Tribunal and the appellate authority, suspended the operation of the relevant orders and instructed the petitioners to pay the required amount within a specified timeframe. It further directed that the appeals would be heard and disposed of expeditiously, with a warning that failure to appear or negligence on the part of the petitioners could result in the original orders coming into effect, necessitating a higher deposit amount. The Court appreciated the Government Advocate's efforts in pursuing tax collection promptly but clarified that the decision regarding the 15% deposit amount would not set a precedent for future cases.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petitions with the specified directions, emphasizing the importance of timely payment and expeditious disposal of appeals, while ensuring the fair exercise of quasi-judicial powers by the appellate authority.