2010 (2) TMI 1074 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the enjoinment of the interim deposit being patently peremptory, the revisional jurisdiction contained in section 82 of the Act by no means can be exercised over-ridding the same more so in absence of any provision for easing such rigour? Held that - In view of the scope and extent of revisional jurisdiction under section 82 of the Act as determined, the challenge to the impugned order in the estimate of this court lacks in substance. Having regard to the limited parameters of assailment noticed as above, this court in the attendant facts and circumstances is disinclined to accede to the reliefs prayed for. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated August 28, 2009, passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam.
2. Validity of the notices issued under section 37(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.
3. Requirement of interim deposit under section 79(5) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
4. Scope of revisional power under section 82 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Dated August 28, 2009:
The petitioner challenged the order dated August 28, 2009, passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, which dismissed the revision petitions filed under section 82 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The petitioner argued that the order was incompatible with the scheme of Chapter IX of the Act and insisted that the Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested by law. The court found that the revision petitions were directed against the appellate authority's order mandating a 25% interim deposit of the disputed tax and interest, and not against the impugned assessment itself. The court upheld the legality of the Commissioner's order, stating that the revisional authority correctly interpreted section 79(5) and found no grounds for interference.

2. Validity of the Notices Issued Under Section 37(1):
The petitioner received notices dated March 7, 2006, and April 10, 2007, from the Superintendent of Taxes, requiring them to show cause why the earlier assessments should not be rectified under section 37(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The petitioner contested these notices, arguing that the assessments were already completed and the deductions claimed were permissible. Despite the petitioner's representations, fresh assessments were conducted, resulting in additional tax demands. The court did not find any specific arguments advanced by the petitioner regarding the merits of the impugned assessments before the revisional authority or the court. Thus, the court did not delve into the validity of these notices in detail.

3. Requirement of Interim Deposit Under Section 79(5):
The appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and interest as a precondition for admitting the appeals. The petitioner argued that this requirement caused undue hardship and was untenable in law. However, the court noted that section 79(5) of the Act mandates an interim deposit of 25% of the disputed tax, penalty, and interest as a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal. The court emphasized that this statutory requirement is absolute and does not allow for any relaxation. The court upheld the appellate authority's direction, stating that it was legal and within the authority of law.

4. Scope of Revisional Power Under Section 82:
The petitioner contended that the revisional authority under section 82 of the Act has plenary powers and should have relaxed the requirement of the interim deposit. The court, however, clarified that while section 82(2A) allows the revisional authority to relax the requirement of deposit for revisions, it does not extend this prerogative to the interim deposit requirement under section 79(5) for appeals. The court held that the revisional power under section 82 is subject to the other provisions of the Act and cannot be exercised to override the explicit statutory mandate of section 79(5). The court concluded that the revisional authority's decision to reject the revision petitions based on the mandatory interim deposit requirement was correct and did not demonstrate a failure to exercise jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the petitions, affirming the legality of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Taxes and the appellate authority. The court upheld the statutory requirement of the interim deposit under section 79(5) and clarified the limited scope of the revisional power under section 82. The challenge to the impugned order was found to lack substance, and the petitions were dismissed with no costs.

← Previous Next →