2007 (8) TMI 653 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the provision of sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 as discriminatory and ultra vires of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner was assessed to commercial tax for a specific period and filed appeals against the orders passed by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority. The Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was repealed, and the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 came into force. The issue revolved around the requirement of depositing 50% of the balance due from the dealer after the order passed by the Appellate Board under the repealed act, as mandated by sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002. The petitioner challenged this provision as discriminatory and violating article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner argued that the provision created inequality among dealers, as those who approached the High Court before the new act came into force were not required to make any deposit, while those who did so after the enactment had to deposit 50% of the balance due. The respondents contended that under section 72 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002, as amended, no deposit was required for references against orders passed by the Appellate Board under the repealed act. This argument aimed to show that the deposit requirement under sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 did not apply to appeals made under section 53(2)(i) against the Appellate Board's orders under the repealed act.

The court, considering the concessions made by the respondents, held that the deposit provision of sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 would not apply to appeals made under section 53(2)(i) against the Appellate Board's orders under the repealed act. This decision ensured that there would be no discrimination between dealers who approached the courts before and after the enactment of the new act. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, resolving the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the discriminatory provision in the VAT Act.