2015 (8) TMI 1298 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Restoration of appeal before tribunal - earlier tribunal dismissed the appeal for non compliance of stay order - Tribunal rejected the restoration petitions stating that they were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, these writ petitions. - Held that - Learned counsel for the petitioner except reiterating the averments and pleading procedural delays, could not support his case with a case law whereunder this Court can entertain a writ petition which is filed at a belated stage with an abnormal delay that too questioning a default order as against which restoration petitions also came to be rejected due to delay in filing. We are of the view that a remedy that is not provided under the law or the Statute which confers powers on the concerned authorities, this Court cannot confer powers that are not there or provided for under the Statute, and therefore, we do not see any ground to entertain the writ petitions. - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against levy of tax under Section 5C of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act for various assessment years; Dismissal of restoration petitions by the Tribunal due to delay in filing; Writ petitions filed before the High Court questioning the rejection of restoration petitions.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Catering Unit under the South Central Railway, contested the levy of tax under Section 5C of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act for different assessment years. The petitioner claimed exemption of tax under second sales, arguing that the section in question did not apply to transactions involving vending boys selling items without a fixed location. Initially, the 1st respondent accepted this plea, but the 2nd respondent initiated revisional proceedings and determined substantial tax amounts due. The petitioner then filed appeals before the Tribunal, seeking stay of tax collection, which were rejected. Subsequently, the High Court granted a stay conditionally, requiring the petitioner to deposit half of the demanded amount. Despite complying, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for default, allowing the petitioner to file restoration petitions within a specified period. The restoration petitions were rejected by the Tribunal due to being filed beyond the limitation period, leading to the filing of writ petitions before the High Court.

The High Court reviewed the circumstances surrounding the rejection of restoration petitions by the Tribunal. The petitioner cited procedural and administrative delays as reasons for the late filing of restoration petitions and approaching the High Court after a significant delay. However, the petitioner failed to provide legal precedent supporting the acceptance of a writ petition filed belatedly, especially challenging a default order for which restoration petitions were also rejected due to delays in filing. The Court emphasized that it cannot grant remedies not provided for under the law or the statute governing the authorities involved. Consequently, the High Court found no grounds to entertain the writ petitions and dismissed them for laches, without imposing any costs. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to be closed accordingly.