2005 (2) TMI 802 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Tribunal regarding payment of tax demand in instalments.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, challenged a demand created by the Excise and Taxation Officer for Rs. 9,84,517 for the assessment year 2000-01. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner directed the petitioner to deposit the amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,50,000 starting from December 2002. The Tribunal later modified this, allowing the demand to be paid in 12 equated monthly instalments. The petitioner failed to comply and sought a review, citing financial difficulties. The Tribunal dismissed the review application, emphasizing that the petitioner had already enjoyed respite and directed the first instalment to be deposited by a specified date.

The High Court considered the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the discretion exercised by the competent authority under section 39(5) of the State Act. Referring to precedents, the Court highlighted the statutory provisions governing appeals and the discretion of the appellate authority to entertain appeals based on payment of assessed tax amounts. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the conditions specified under section 39(5) for the appeal to be heard on merits.

In light of the legal principles and facts of the case, the Court rejected the contention that the Tribunal erred in refusing to entertain the petitioner's plea for stay. The Court noted the petitioner's substantial turnovers in previous years, indicating a sound financial position. It concluded that there was no valid ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the authorities against staying the demand. The Court also criticized the petitioner for taking advantage of the leniency shown by the authorities.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition but provided an opportunity for the petitioner to avoid dismissal of the appeal by paying the second instalment by a specified date. This conditional relief was subject to strict adherence to the remaining instalment payments as prescribed by the Tribunal.