1994 (8) TMI 289 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Sales Tax Tribunal were justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order despite the Supreme Court allowing the petitioner to deposit the tax amount within four weeks.

Analysis:
The petitioner faced assessments for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, resulting in orders of assessment and penalty. The petitioner appealed these orders and requested a stay without payment, but the appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount by a specified date. The appeals were later dismissed by the appellate authority due to the petitioner's failure to make the deposit as directed.

Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the Sales Tax Tribunal, which allowed the appeals to proceed if the payment was made in two equal monthly installments. The petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court, which dismissed the petition. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court, which granted an additional four weeks to deposit the amount, acknowledging the dismissal of the appeals by the appellate authority.

Despite the Supreme Court's order, the Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeals on May 6, 1994. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision was unjust and arbitrary, as the Supreme Court's extension of time should have been considered. The Court agreed, finding the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals to be unreasonable and based on conjecture, effectively bypassing the Supreme Court's order.

The Court emphasized that the use of the term "further" by the Supreme Court indicated an intention to extend the time-limit set by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, and legally erroneous. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case for a fresh hearing in compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals was unjust and based on an error of law apparent on the face of the order.