2004 (4) TMI 562 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of revision order lacking merit; Interpretation of statutory provisions under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948; Applicability of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act; Maintainability of first appeal under section 9(1B) of the Act.

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948:
The case involved a dispute related to the assessment year 1998-99 (Central) where the appellant failed to deposit the admitted tax before filing an appeal, as required under section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The appellant contended that the State Government had permitted the payment of tax in instalments, but the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant failed to comply with the statutory condition of depositing the admitted tax. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide evidence of payment. The court reiterated that depositing the admitted tax is a prerequisite for entertaining an appeal under the Act, and the appellant's failure to comply led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Applicability of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act:
The applicant argued that the recovery of sales tax was not permissible under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the court clarified that the issue in the present case was not about recovery proceedings but the maintainability of the first appeal under section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The court distinguished the facts of the present case from the case cited by the applicant, emphasizing that the Supreme Court judgment was not applicable to the current scenario. Despite being given the opportunity to present arguments, the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal basis to disregard the provisions of section 9(1B) in the context of the present case.

Maintainability of First Appeal under Section 9(1B) of the Act:
The court analyzed the statutory provision of section 9(1B) of the Act, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of depositing the admitted tax for entertaining an appeal. The dismissal of the revision order was based on the appellant's failure to comply with this provision. The court noted that the appellant's arguments regarding the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment were unfounded and lacked relevance to the current case. Despite being given the opportunity to elaborate during the recall proceedings, the applicant could not provide any legal justification to overlook the statutory provisions outlined in section 9(1B) of the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the application and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the importance of complying with statutory provisions, particularly regarding the deposit of admitted tax for the maintainability of appeals under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The court clarified the distinction between the issues raised by the applicant and the legal principles applicable to the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application.