1995 (2) TMI 416 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the applicant could not challenge the levy of tax by way of additional grounds raised after the period of limitation of 60 days.
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, whether it was necessary for the Tribunal to consider if the applicant had shown sufficient cause for not preferring the additional grounds within the prescribed period of limitation.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Tribunal's Error in Law Regarding Additional Grounds:

The primary issue revolved around whether the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the applicant could not challenge the levy of tax through additional grounds raised after the 60-day limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal under section 55(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee, a registered dealer under the Act, initially appealed against the imposition of penalty and interest but later sought to challenge the tax levy by filing additional grounds. The Assistant Commissioner treated this application as a separate appeal and dismissed it on the grounds of limitation.

The Court emphasized that under section 55(1)(a) of the Act, there can be only one appeal against an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The Act does not contemplate multiple appeals against the same order. Therefore, if an assessee wishes to raise additional grounds, they must do so within the original appeal. The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal committed an error of law by treating the application for additional grounds as a separate appeal and dismissing it based on limitation. The Court clarified that such an application should be treated as a miscellaneous application within the pending appeal and decided on its merits.

2. Necessity to Consider Sufficient Cause for Delay:

Given that the first question was answered affirmatively, the Court found that the second issue regarding the necessity to consider whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for the delay in raising additional grounds did not survive. The Court held that the assessee is entitled to move the appellate authority for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal, and the appellate authority must consider the same on merits.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee could not challenge the determination of tax by way of additional grounds in an appeal filed against an order of assessment. The assessee is entitled to seek permission to raise additional grounds, and the appellate authority must consider such applications on their merits. Consequently, the Court answered the first question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, and declined to answer the second question as it did not survive. The reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.