2011 (7) TMI 1034 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, as amended by Amendment Act 4 of 2000.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenged the amendment that required 25% of the tax difference to be paid before appealing under section 34 of the Act. The petitioners argued that the amendment restricted the appellate authority's discretion in directing tax payment. The respondents contended that previous court orders upheld the validity of the amendment, emphasizing that the discretion of the appellate authority remained intact. They argued that the amendment should be read harmoniously with existing provisions.

The petitioners cited the Supreme Court's decision in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, stating that special provisions for speedy recovery of dues did not apply in this case. The respondents referred to the decision in K.M. Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu, where a similar amendment in a different Act was upheld as valid. Considering the arguments and precedents, the court concluded that the amendment to section 34 of the Act was not invalid.

The court found no evidence to support the claim that the amendment was ultra vires or unconstitutional. Citing previous orders affirming the validity of the amendment, the court dismissed the writ petitions for lacking merit. The court held that the amendment did not infringe on the appellate authority's discretion regarding tax payment under section 34 of the Act. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as well.