2014 (8) TMI 928 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Non complaince of pre deposit order - dismissal of the appeals, on the ground of non-deposit of the amount of pre deposit - Held that - Tribunal has materially erred in adjudicating the issues on merits, despite the fact that the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals on the ground of failure to deposit the amount of pre deposit. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of tax exemption limit under Gujarat Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Requirement to produce statutory forms for claiming concessional tax rate.
3. Jurisdiction to interpret entry 140 of notification under section 49(2).
4. Adjudication on merits despite non-deposit of pre deposit amount.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the judgment of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The appellant challenged the calculation of tax exemption limit and assessment of tax under clause 20(iii) of Entry 140 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, in light of the amended Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The High Court noted that the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals due to non-deposit of the entire amount demanded, but the Tribunal proceeded to decide on the merits. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in adjudicating on the merits despite the non-deposit of the pre deposit amount.

2. The issue of whether the opponent was required to produce statutory forms "C" to claim a concessional rate of tax after the amendment of Section 8(5) was raised. The High Court observed that the Tribunal should have considered the requirement of depositing the pre deposit amount under Section 73(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, before delving into the merits of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements before addressing substantive issues.

3. Another substantial question of law related to the interpretation of entry 140 of the notification under section 49(2) was raised. The appellant contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interpreting this entry, which should have been within the purview of the State Level Committee. The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeals in accordance with the law and within a stipulated time frame, emphasizing the need to adhere to procedural rules and statutory provisions.

4. The High Court ultimately quashed the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matters for fresh consideration. Both the appellant and respondent agreed to this course of action. The Court set a deadline of three months for the Tribunal to reevaluate the appeals, considering the legal requirements and procedural aspects. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and addressing procedural irregularities before delving into substantive issues.