1995 (7) TMI 390 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to assessment proceedings initiated by sales tax authorities.
2. Legality of the demand notice and subsequent orders.
3. Right of appeal for persons other than dealers.
4. Interpretation of the term "person" in sections 39, 40, 41, and 43 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
5. Validity of the appellate authority's decision to dismiss appeals due to lack of locus standi.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Assessment Proceedings Initiated by Sales Tax Authorities:
The petitioners challenged the assessment proceedings initiated against M/s. Siri Surya Complex by the sales tax authorities. The assessment led to a demand of Rs. 84,950. The petitioners, who stood surety for M/s. Siri Surya Complex, filed appeals against the demand notice and subsequent orders, which were dismissed by the appellate authority.

2. Legality of the Demand Notice and Subsequent Orders:
The demand notice issued by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal, and the order dated May 27, 1994, passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala, were challenged. The appellate authority dismissed the appeals on the grounds of non-maintainability, which was contested by the petitioners.

3. Right of Appeal for Persons Other than Dealers:
The court examined whether individuals other than dealers, specifically those who stood surety for dealers, had the right to appeal under section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeals on the basis that the petitioners lacked locus standi.

4. Interpretation of the Term "Person" in Sections 39, 40, 41, and 43 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973:
The court analyzed the use of the term "person" versus "dealer" in various sections of the Act. It was determined that the Legislature intentionally used "person" to include individuals other than dealers, such as sureties, who could be affected by the recovery of tax, penalty, or interest.

5. Validity of the Appellate Authority's Decision to Dismiss Appeals Due to Lack of Locus Standi:
The court found that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals on the grounds of lack of locus standi. The judgment emphasized that any person aggrieved by an order affecting the recovery of tax, penalty, or interest has the right to appeal. The court held that the appellate authority's order was an error of law and directed it to hear and decide the appeals on their merits.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala. It directed the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeals filed by the petitioners on their merits within two months and stayed the recovery proceedings against the petitioners during this period. The court emphasized the right of appeal for persons other than dealers and upheld the plain meaning of the statute. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.