2001 (9) TMI 1113 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of amended Act No. 4 of 2000 to the petitioners under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras dealt with three writ petitions challenging the order of the assessing authority regarding the deposit of 25 per cent of the tax difference for filing an appeal post the amendment in the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. The central issue revolved around the applicability of the amended Act No. 4 of 2000, which mandated the deposit of 25 per cent of the tax difference as a precondition for filing an appeal. The petitioners argued that the right to file appeals vested in them before the amendment came into force, based on the date of filing returns or when the returns were due. They relied on a judgment by the Special Tribunal and emphasized the significance of the date of assessment order in determining the right to prefer appeals.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the date of filing returns or when the returns were due, whichever was earlier, should be considered the relevant date for filing an appeal. They argued that since the assessment orders were passed after the Amendment Act came into force, the petitioners should not be required to deposit 25 per cent of the tax difference. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader argued that the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case established that the amended provisions should be followed, and the deposit was necessary for filing an appeal. They referred to another judgment to support their stance that the date of assessment is crucial for determining the right to appeal.

The High Court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and considered the Supreme Court's decision in a similar matter. It concluded that the date of the assessment order was indeed the relevant date for determining the right to prefer appeals. Since the assessment orders were made after the Amendment Act came into force, the petitioners were required to deposit 25 per cent of the tax difference to file an appeal. Therefore, the court held that the impugned orders insisting on the deposit were not illegal, and the writ petitions were dismissed accordingly. The court rejected the plea for a writ of mandamus to entertain the appeals without the deposit in the other writ petitions as well.

In summary, the judgment clarified that the amended provisions of the Act required the petitioners to deposit 25 per cent of the tax difference as a precondition for filing appeals post the Amendment Act. The court upheld the legality of the orders demanding the deposit and dismissed the writ petitions challenging the same.