1994 (5) TMI 237 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash orders by Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II).
- Failure to comply with the order dated September 30, 1993, under section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975.
- Request for extension of time to comply with the pre-deposit order and hear the appeal on merits.

Analysis:
The petitioner company filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated March 25, 1994, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the order dated February 28, 1994, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II), dismissing the petitioner's appeal for failure to comply with the order dated September 30, 1993, under section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The petitioner sought a direction to hear the appeal on merits and extend the time for complying with the pre-deposit order. The petitioner had been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 by October 18, 1993, as a condition to entertain the appeal, but failed to do so. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-compliance. The Tribunal also declined to review the assessment as the appeal had been dismissed. The petitioner argued financial constraints prevented compliance and offered to deposit Rs. 1 lakh with security for the balance amount. However, the Court held that the failure to comply with the deposit order rendered the appeal incompetent, as per section 43(5) of the Act, and upheld the lower authorities' decisions.

The Court emphasized that section 43(5) of the Act mandates that no appeal against an assessment order shall be entertained unless accompanied by proof of tax payment. The first proviso allows the appellate authority to entertain an appeal without full payment under certain conditions. In this case, the first appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs by October 18, 1993, to enable the appeal's consideration. The petitioner did not challenge this order or seek an extension. Therefore, the order became final, and the failure to deposit rendered the appeal incompetent. The Court noted the mandatory nature of the provision and upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal's decision to support this was deemed correct, and the Court found no grounds to interfere, ultimately dismissing the writ petition.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities based on the mandatory nature of the deposit requirement under section 43(5) of the Act. The petitioner's failure to comply with the deposit order led to the dismissal of the appeal, and the Court found no justification to overturn this decision.