2014 (4) TMI 691 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condition of Pre-deposit Interim stay during the pendency of the appeal Held That - This Court finds that, Assessee had not submitted any objection, on serving the pre- assessment notice as clearly discernible from Exts. P1 to P3 - What the reason was, is not forthcoming and it is not stated anywhere in the appeal memorandum filed before the second respondent as well - This Court finds that the condition imposed by the appellate authority while granting interim stay, is not liable to be treated as arbitrary or illegal in any manner - However, it is made clear that, if any amount has been satisfied by the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P3, i.e., after passing the assessment order, the same shall be given credit to and only 30% of the balance liability needs to be cleared, furnishing security for the balance amount in compliance of the interim order passed by the appellate authority vide Exts. P12 to P14 - Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Condition imposed by appellate authority for interim stay during appeal
- Credit of amount already deposited
- Failure to submit objections to pre-assessment notice

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the condition imposed by the appellate authority, requiring them to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability and furnish security for the balance amount to avail interim stay during the appeal process. The petitioner had already approached the Government to intercept coercive proceedings, which resulted in partial payment of the disputed amount. The appellate authority's order, as per Exts. P12 to P14, was contested as onerous by the petitioner.

2. The dispute arose from the assessment finalized for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13, leading to appeals by the petitioner against the assessment orders. The petitioner's failure to file objections to the pre-assessment notice was highlighted during the proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any valid reasons for not submitting objections, which led to the conclusion that the condition imposed by the appellate authority was not arbitrary or illegal.

3. The petitioner argued that the amount already deposited post the Government's intervention should be credited towards the liability. The Government Pleader representing the respondents confirmed that the payments made by the petitioner were duly credited, and only the remaining balance was considered for determining the liability to be satisfied.

4. After considering both parties' submissions, the court upheld the appellate authority's decision but clarified that any amount paid by the petitioner after the assessment order should be accounted for. The court dismissed the writ petition but granted a two-week extension for compliance with the interim orders, instructing the petitioner to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the concerned respondent for further action.