2012 (10) TMI 967 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - non payment of admitted amount of tax liability, along with 25 per cent of the disputed amount of tax, within the period specified - Held that - From the records available before this court, it is noted that this court, by its order, dated March 1, 2012 had directed the first respondent herein to hear the appeal and to pass orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner paying a sum of ₹ 50 lakhs, as part of the tax said to be payable by it, and to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It is also noted that the petitioner had complied with the said conditions, on March 28, 2012. As such, the first respondent ought to have heard the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal due to non-payment of tax liability.
2. Compliance with court directives regarding payment of tax and personal bond.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal due to non-payment of tax liability
The petitioner submitted that the impugned order should be set aside, and the matter remitted back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the law. The first respondent had dismissed the appeal as not maintainable since the petitioner had not paid the admitted amount of tax liability along with 25% of the disputed tax within the specified period. The first respondent cited provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, requiring payment of admitted tax and a percentage of disputed tax for filing an appeal. The court noted discrepancies in the payment details provided by the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2: Compliance with court directives regarding payment of tax and personal bond
The court referred to a previous order directing the first respondent to hear the appeal and pass orders on merits and in accordance with the law upon the petitioner's compliance with certain conditions. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and furnished a personal bond as directed. However, despite the petitioner's compliance, the first respondent dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of following court directives and ensuring due process in the appeal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of maintainability of the appeal based on non-payment of tax liability and compliance with court directives regarding payment of tax and personal bond. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to hear the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for a fair and expeditious resolution of the matter.