9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 870 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Tribunal s order - Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deciding the appeal on merits when the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissing it only for non payment of predeposit - Held that - Following decision of JYOTI TRADERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT 2015 (2) TMI 592 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - There are no distinguishing facts and circumstances on the question of predeposit. Hence, the question is required to be answered in negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. When the condition of predeposit ordered by the Tribunal was satisfied and as the First Appellate Authority had not examined the Appeal on merits, it was required for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the First Appellate Authority for examining the Appeal on merits but the Tribunal, instead of remanding the matter to the First Appellate Authority, decided to examine the merits of the Appeal and has passed the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances and more particularly in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we find that such an approach on the part of the Tribunal for not remanding the matter to the First Appellate Authority for examination on merits and proceeding to decide the merits of the Appeal, is exfacie erroneous. However, as the condition of predeposit has been complied with in the Appeal before the Tribunal, we find that instead of sending the matter to the Tribunal it would be just and proper to send back the matter to the First Appellate Authority for examination of the merits of the Appeal. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in deciding the appeal on merits when the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed it for non-payment of predeposit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tribunal's Decision on Merits vs. Predeposit Issue: The primary issue in this case was whether the Tribunal erred in deciding the appeal on merits instead of addressing the issue of predeposit. The appellant had not complied with the predeposit condition, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to examine the merits of the appeal without addressing the predeposit issue. 2. Previous Court Decisions: The court referenced its earlier decision in Tax Appeal No. 1353 of 2014, where it was established that the Tribunal should first address the predeposit issue. The court reiterated that the Tribunal's role was to determine whether the predeposit condition imposed by the First Appellate Authority was appropriate. If the condition was met, the matter should be remanded to the First Appellate Authority for a decision on the merits. 3. Legal Framework and Tribunal's Error: The court highlighted Section 73(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which mandates that an appeal against an assessment order should be accompanied by proof of payment of tax unless the appellate authority decides otherwise. The Tribunal's decision to bypass this requirement and address the merits directly was deemed erroneous. The court noted that the Tribunal should have either confirmed, set aside, or modified the predeposit condition and then remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority. 4. Compliance with Predeposit Condition: It was observed that the appellant had complied with the predeposit condition as directed by the Tribunal by depositing Rs. 36,000. Despite this compliance, the Tribunal should have remanded the case to the First Appellate Authority instead of deciding on the merits directly. 5. Remand to First Appellate Authority: Given that the predeposit condition was met, the court found it appropriate to remand the matter to the First Appellate Authority for examination on merits. The Tribunal's decision to directly address the merits without remanding the case was considered a significant error. Conclusion: The court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the appeal to the First Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax) for a decision on the merits. The First Appellate Authority was directed to hear both sides and pass an appropriate order within three months. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with no costs awarded.
|
