2017 (6) TMI 1201 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Finalization of assessment - the petitioner is not liable to satisfy the alleged deficit 0.5% as the assessment here in question is 2013- 2014 and Exhibit.P5 amendment was brought into force only on 1.4.2016 - Held that - though there is no appeal from the aforecited judgment this Court would grant a conditional order directing consideration of the appeal on executing a simple bond without sureties before the Assessing Officer with respect to the enhanced legal benefit fund - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Requirement of additional court fee for appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Applicability of the amendment to the payment of legal benefit fund.
3. Interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.
4. Effect of the judgment in Ismail vs. State of Kerala (2006).
5. Pending cases before the Single Judge.
6. Protection of interests of both parties during the proceedings.
7. Direction for remittance of additional court fee.
8. Granting conditional order for consideration of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order by the Tribunal requiring the payment of a deficit additional court fee of 0.5% to make it 1% for an appeal. The assessment was finalized under the KVAT Act for the year 2013-14, and the petitioner had initially satisfied 0.5% as per S.R.O. No. 226/2002. However, the rate was subsequently increased to 1% under S.R.O. No. 315/2016 from 1.4.2016. The Tribunal noted the deficit and passed the challenged order (Ext.P8).

2. The petitioner argued that they were not liable for the deficit 0.5% as the assessment was prior to the amendment coming into force. Reference was made to a previous judgment (Ismail vs. State of Kerala), which was rendered concerning S.R.O. No. 226/2002. The Government Pleader contended that appeals after 1.4.2016 should adhere to the amended rate under Ext.P5.

3. The Court considered the applicability of the amendment and the timing of the assessment in question. It noted that cases were pending before a Single Judge on similar issues. A previous judgment (Ext.P10) required the petitioner to execute a bond to cover the potential deficit if the decision favored the Government. The Court decided to follow a similar approach in this case, allowing the appeal to be considered on executing a bond without sureties for the enhanced legal benefit fund.

4. Despite the absence of an appeal against the previous judgment, the Court granted a conditional order for the appeal's consideration. The petitioner was given two weeks to meet the requirements, failing which the Assessing Officer would recover the amount as tax dues. The Tribunal was directed to decide on the appeal's merits in accordance with the law after the petitioner complied with the conditions set by the Court.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, including the legal arguments presented by the parties and the Court's decision on each aspect of the case.