1994 (12) TMI 307 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against additional demands under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
- Request for stay of recovery and payment in monthly installments.
- Appeal before Sales Tax Tribunal regarding deposit requirements.
- Compliance with proviso to sub-section (5) of section 39 of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court pertains to an appeal filed against additional demands created by the Assessing Authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The petitioner had initially filed appeals before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) seeking a stay of recovery and permission to pay in monthly installments. The appellate authority allowed payment in installments but rejected the stay of recovery. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, challenging the deposit requirements. The Tribunal, considering the financial position of the petitioner and the total amount involved, directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the balance amount within a month, without assessing the petitioner's ability to pay as per the proviso to section 39(5) of the Act.

The Court emphasized that under section 39(5) of the Act, an appeal cannot be entertained unless the tax assessed, penalty, and interest have been paid, unless the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant is unable to pay the full amount. The proviso allows for the entertainment of an appeal without prior deposit if the appellant is unable to pay. The Court noted that the Tribunal did not consider the relevant factors or the material before it while directing the deposit of 50% of the balance amount. The Court highlighted the inconsistency in the Tribunal's approach, as it had earlier allowed the appeal to be heard without requiring additional deposit based on the same material.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Tribunal, and directed the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, to decide on the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without demanding any further deposit, considering that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 as per the Tribunal's previous directions. The Court made it clear that the Tribunal had failed to adhere to the requirements of the proviso to section 39(5) of the Act, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the proper application of the proviso to section 39(5) of the Act in entertaining appeals without prior deposit, emphasizing the need for the appellate authority to assess the appellant's financial position before requiring any payment. The Court's decision aimed to ensure fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in the appeal process under the Sales Tax Act.