1994 (8) TMI 280 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against assessment orders.
2. Delay in filing appeals before the appellate authority.
3. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
4. Direction to dispose of appeals expeditiously.
5. Collection of tax and deferring it till disposal of appeals.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the assessment orders for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessment orders were initially revised by the respondent, leading to the filing of a writ petition by the petitioner. However, since there was an alternate remedy available against the assessment orders, the challenge could not be accepted by the High Court. The petitioner subsequently filed appeals and stay applications before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam. The delay of two days in filing the appeals was brought to the court's attention, and the petitioner sought condonation of this delay.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner had approached the wrong forum initially but recognized the valid ground for condonation of the delay under section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the court directed the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the appeals after condoning the delay within three months. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the appeals and highlighted the necessity for the appellate authority to address the delay issue.

Regarding the rate of tax levied on the petitioner, the court noted the petitioner's contention that the enhanced rate of tax should not apply based on a previous court decision. Acknowledging the prima facie case presented by the petitioner, the court directed that the collection of tax against the petitioner be deferred until the appeals were resolved by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The court instructed the respondent not to initiate recovery steps for the tax amount until the appeals were disposed of.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition accordingly, emphasizing the need for the appellate authority to act promptly on the appeals and stay applications. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the delay in filing appeals and ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner before the appellate authority.