1994 (9) TMI 322 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in setting aside ex parte assessments under U.P. and Central Sales Tax Acts.
2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings before Sales Tax Officer.
3. Deposit of admitted tax for setting aside ex parte assessment under U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Setting Aside Ex Parte Assessments:
The revisionist failed to appear for assessments for the year 1981-82, resulting in ex parte assessment orders. The revisionist sought condonation of delay in filing applications under section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act due to a mistake in noting the date of service. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the applications citing time bar, non-deposit of admitted tax, and lack of reasonable cause for absence. The Assistant Commissioner and Sales Tax Tribunal upheld the rejection, emphasizing the delay and non-deposit of tax. The Tribunal's order lacked specifics on tax payment or absence cause. The revisionist argued that a genuine mistake warranted condonation, while the Standing Counsel contended Section 5 of the Limitation Act didn't apply to Sales Tax Officer proceedings.

2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The Court deliberated on whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to Sales Tax Officer proceedings, citing the Janta Cycle case where it was held inapplicable for condoning tax payment delay. The Court distinguished between quasi-judicial bodies and courts, asserting the Sales Tax Officer's executive authority status. Notably, specific provisions in the U.P. Sales Tax Act allow for condonation in certain sections but not under section 30. The Court referenced the Athani case, emphasizing that bodies like the Sales Tax Officer aren't governed by the Limitation Act.

3. Deposit of Admitted Tax for Setting Aside Ex Parte Assessment:
Regarding the Central sales tax issue, the revisionist deposited a sum as admitted tax, but the department contested the adequacy of the deposit due to bank commission deduction. The Revenue argued that only the net amount after deduction should be considered deposited. However, the Court found the department's contention untenable, emphasizing that the department should have informed the revisionist of any commission deduction before rejecting the application based on deficient deposit. The Court concluded that the applications were time-barred due to the non-applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, dismissing the revision petitions.

In summary, the Court held that the delay in filing applications for setting aside ex parte assessments could not be condoned due to the non-applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Sales Tax Officer proceedings. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of depositing admitted tax, ruling against the department's contention of deficiency. The revision petitions were dismissed, with each party bearing its costs.