9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 676 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of maintaining an appeal under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 without payment of admitted tax, and the authority of the appellate authority to waive or stay the pre-deposit requirement. Issue 1: Appeal under Section 31 without payment of admitted tax The petitioner filed a petition invoking the jurisdiction of section 7 of the Special Tribunal Act seeking relief to call for records of the case in M.P.No.121 of 2000 dated September 27, 2002, relating to the petitioner for the assessment year 1994-1995. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner quashed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay the admitted tax to maintain the appeal. The petitioner contended that the court can pass an order directing the authorities to entertain the appeal without payment of admitted tax, citing relevant legal decisions. However, the court emphasized the mandatory requirement of section 31 of the TNGST Act, which necessitates the payment of admitted tax to maintain the appeal. The court analyzed various legal precedents and concluded that the statutory authority cannot admit an appeal without the required payment, dismissing the writ petition. Issue 2: Authority to waive or stay pre-deposit requirement The petitioner relied on legal provisions such as section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to argue against the pre-deposit requirement for maintaining the appeal. The court clarified that the protective provisions for sick industrial companies do not apply to the payment obligation for appeal maintenance. The court highlighted that the statutory requirement of payment for appeal maintenance cannot be equated with recovery proceedings against a company. Referring to multiple legal judgments, the court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory right subject to conditions, and the appellate authority cannot waive the pre-deposit condition. The court dismissed the writ petition while acknowledging the petitioner's right to represent the government for the removal of the appeal filing embargo.
|
