9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 653 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxEntry Tax Act - whether is invalid illegal and void being violative of articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India? - Held that - In view of the settled decisions of this court in a case where prima facie there is clear evidence to establish that the disputed tax which is being charged being paid or is not payable then the financial capacity of assessee is not the sole criteria for either accepting or rejecting the prayer made by the assessee for stay or waiver of pre-deposit. The appeals of the assessee itself for the months January to June 2008 may be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The appeal shall be presented within a week from today and the same may be decided in accordance with law. For a period of two months or till the decision is taken in the appeal there will be stay of the balance 20 per cent of the predeposit provided the assessee deposits adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority other than cash or bank guarantee.
Issues:
1. Validity of Entry Tax Act under articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India 2. Interpretation of charging section 4 of the Act in relation to natural gas supply 3. Consideration of previous court judgments in Tribunal's decision 4. Adequacy of reasons for extending pre-deposit to 80% Issue 1: Validity of Entry Tax Act under articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India The revisionist challenged the validity of the Entry Tax Act, contending it violated articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution. They cited previous judgments to support their argument. The High Court emphasized the need to consider the legality of the Act, especially in light of pending adjudication. The Court directed expeditious resolution of the appeals related to the Act, allowing a stay on the balance of the pre-deposit pending appeal decision. Issue 2: Interpretation of charging section 4 of the Act in relation to natural gas supply The revisionist argued that the natural gas purchased locally did not warrant entry tax as it was already deposited by the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL). They relied on a circular exempting the need for additional documentation in such cases. The Court noted the circular and the evidence of tax payment by GAIL, emphasizing the importance of considering such evidence in decisions related to pre-deposit requirements. Issue 3: Consideration of previous court judgments in Tribunal's decision The revisionist raised concerns about the Tribunal not adequately considering previous court judgments in partially allowing the appeal. The High Court highlighted the necessity for quasi-judicial authorities like the Tribunal to consider all arguments and relevant legal precedents in their decisions. The Court stressed the importance of upholding principles established in previous judgments to ensure the legality and sustainability of Tribunal orders. Issue 4: Adequacy of reasons for extending pre-deposit to 80% The High Court scrutinized the Tribunal's decision to extend the pre-deposit to 80%, noting the lack of cogent reasons provided for this extension. The Court emphasized that the financial capacity of the assessee should not be the sole criteria for determining pre-deposit requirements. It directed the Tribunal to base its decisions on the evidence presented, including the tax payment evidence and relevant circulars, to ensure a fair and just outcome. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the revisions, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of appeals related to the Entry Tax Act. The Court highlighted the importance of considering evidence, legal precedents, and providing adequate reasons in decisions related to pre-deposit requirements.
|
