2014 (4) TMI 1034 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Payment of predeposit - Option to pay in installments Meeting the ends of justice Held that - As such the appellant ought to have approached the Tribunal for installments at the earliest and ought not to have waited till 2013 - The question is only w.r.t. the predeposit and appellant shall be given an opportunity to submit the case on merits on payment of interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 9.9.2010 till actual payment is made, the appellant may be given further six months time to make the payment of ₹ 22,96,969/and on that appeal shall be decided by the appellate authority on merits - If the appellant is granted time upto 31.12.2013 to make the payment of aforesaid amount by granting six months EMI with 10% interest on the aforesaid amount from 9.9.2010 till 31.12.2013, it will meet the ends of justice. Appeals succeed in part and the impugned order of Tribunal dated 11.3. is modified and common appellant is granted further time to make the payment on or before 31.12.2013 and to be paid in 6 EMIs with condition that the appellant shall make the payment with 10% interest p.a. from 9.9.2010 till 31.12.2013 and the aforesaid amount of interest shall be paid in last installment - Aforesaid payment of interest shall be irrespective of outcome of the decision of the appellate authority on remand and the same is while granting further six month installments - On deposit of aforesaid amount with interest thereon, the appeals preferred by the appellant shall be decided and disposed of by the appellate authority on merits as ordered by the Tribunal in Second Appeal - If the appellant fails to make the payment of aforesaid amount stated above within stipulated time, it will be open for the Officer/ appropriate authority to recover the amount under the order of assessment which shall be without prejudice to any further proceedings for breach of undertaking - All appeals disposed of Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to make predeposit leading to rejection of appeals by the Appellate Authority.
2. Rejection of Restoration Application seeking restoration of appeals.
3. Dismissal of Miscellaneous Application for installment payments.
4. Appeal against the impugned order dated 11.3.2013.

Issue 1: Failure to make predeposit leading to rejection of appeals by the Appellate Authority
The appellant, involved in reselling and manufacturing edible oil, was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, with a total demand of Rs. 5,15,54,784. The tax liability under the assessment order was Rs. 2,29,69,686. The appellant's appeal before the Appellate Authority required a predeposit, which was not made, resulting in the summary rejection of the appeals.

Issue 2: Rejection of Restoration Application seeking restoration of appeals
Following the rejection of the appeals due to non-payment of predeposit, the appellant filed Restoration Application seeking to restore the appeals. However, the Tribunal rejected the application, leading to further legal challenges by the appellant.

Issue 3: Dismissal of Miscellaneous Application for installment payments
The appellant, after approximately three years, submitted a Miscellaneous Application seeking 48 monthly installments to pay the required predeposit amount. The Tribunal dismissed the application, citing the delay in making the installment request.

Issue 4: Appeal against the impugned order dated 11.3.2013
The appellant appealed against the order dated 11.3.2013, which dismissed the application for installments. The appellant requested reasonable installments to pay the predeposit amount, highlighting the delay in initiating recovery proceedings despite the non-payment of the required amount.

The Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, granted the appellant further time to make the payment of Rs. 22,96,969 by 31.12.2013 in six equal monthly installments with 10% interest. The Court emphasized that the interest payment would be irrespective of the appeal outcome, ensuring justice and compliance. The appellant was required to file an undertaking for timely payment, with consequences outlined for failure to comply.