2013 (2) TMI 247 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Entry tax levied - petitioner moved an application for settlement before the respondent No.3 which is stated to be pending, but a recovery has been directed against the petitioner - Held that - The petitioner has already approached to the Settlement Authority under Section 24-B and as per the procedure prescribed under Section 24-C, the Authority has to decide the matter in accordance with law. Section 24-(8) Sic 24-C(8) provided that after settlement of the dispute no penal action shall be initiated against the assessee under any Act administered by the Department after an order of settlement has been passed under this Section. Meaning thereby that a protection is provided to the assessee who had moved an application before the settlement Authority to settle the cases under Section 24-B of the Act. Thus it is appropriate to dispose of this matter as the settlement Authority shall expedite the matter and make an endeavour to decide/settle all the matters expeditiously as far as possible within a period of 6 months from the date of this order but not later than 30th June, 2012. And till the matters are settled by the Authority, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of dues for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07. However, any amount which is not disputed by the petitioner shall be deposited by the petitioner as per provisions as contained under Section 24-B and 24-C within a period of 30 days from today. The settlement Authority shall communicate its final order to the petitioner for its compliance by the petitioner in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entry tax levy for the period 2008-09.
2. Application for settlement under Section 24-B of the M.P. VAT Act.
3. Directions for settlement and recovery of dues.

Entry Tax Levy:
The petitioner was levied with an entry tax of Rs. 20,82,049 for the period 2008-09. An appeal against the order was dismissed, and a recovery was directed against the petitioner. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent No.3 to decide the application for settlement filed under Section 24B of the M.P. VAT Act.

Application for Settlement:
Referring to a previous case, M/s Surjeet Auto Agency, where a similar controversy was addressed, it was highlighted that under Section 24-B of the Act, the petitioner had moved an application for settlement. The court noted that the Settlement Authority needed time to decide the disputes between the parties as per the procedure outlined in Sections 24-B and 24-C of the VAT Act. The Settlement Authority was directed to expedite the matter and make efforts to settle all issues within six months.

Directions for Settlement and Recovery of Dues:
The court directed that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner for dues related to the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 until the matters were settled by the Authority. The petitioner was required to deposit any undisputed amounts within 30 days. The Settlement Authority was instructed to communicate its final decision to the petitioner promptly. The judgment from M/s. Surjeet Auto Agency was applied to the present case for the assessment year 2008-09. The respondent No.3 was directed to settle the matter expeditiously within 60 days and decide it in accordance with the law, with the court refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits. No costs were awarded in the judgment.