2013 (10) TMI 1167 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - because all the business premises, accounts, etc. have been taken into possession by the respondents for recovery of the due amount - Held that - under the provisions of M.P. V.A.T. Act, there is a provision of filing of second appeal against the appellate order and if the petitioner is having efficacious statutory remedy of filing second appeal then normally this court should not entertain the writ petition merely on the ground that the petitioner is required to make statutory pre-deposit or does not possess the liquidated amount for deposit of the statutory amount before filing of the second appeal. The petitioner may move an application before the Board for seeking exemption from deposit of such an amount as the entire properties including the bank accounts, etc. have been seized by the respondents and the petitioner is not having any liquidated amount for deposit of the same, which would be considered by the Board on its merits.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging appellate order on block assessment, failure to follow previous court orders, lack of liquidity for statutory deposit, seeking exemption from deposit, restraint on property disposal during appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses multiple issues arising from petitions challenging an appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax. The petitioners contested the imposition of liability in block assessment orders. The primary grounds for challenging the order included non-compliance with previous court orders and failure to consider issues decided in favor of the petitioners in earlier assessments. Additionally, the petitioners highlighted their inability to make the required 20% deposit for filing an appeal before the Commercial Tax Appellate Board due to the seizure of their business premises and accounts by the respondents.

The State argued that the petitioners had the alternative remedy of filing a second appeal under the M.P. V.A.T. Act and should not be granted relief through the writ petition. The court acknowledged the statutory requirement of deposit but emphasized that the petitioners could seek exemption from the Board due to their current financial constraints. The court directed the petitioners to file a second appeal within the statutory period or 30 days from the judgment, whichever is later. It also instructed the petitioners to request exemption from the statutory deposit, which the Board should consider sympathetically given the circumstances.

Furthermore, the court recognized the need for an expedited resolution, considering the closure of the petitioner's business for the past 15 months. The Board was directed to hear and decide on the matter within three months from the filing of the appeal. To prevent the petitioners from being left without a remedy if the second appeal succeeds, the court ordered that the seized properties should not be disposed of or auctioned for recovery of dues until the appeal decision.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a balanced approach by allowing the petitioners to pursue their statutory remedies while also addressing their financial constraints and the need for a timely resolution. The court's directions aim to protect the petitioners' interests during the appeal process and ensure a fair opportunity for redress without incurring undue hardship.