2015 (3) TMI 1001 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Stay application - Held that - Primary consideration regarding existence of prima facie case has not at all been taken into consideration. Absolutely, no finding has been recorded either by the first appellate authority or by the Tribunal. All that the first appellate authority has mentioned in the impugned order is that the applicant stated about its financial hardship, which contention was objected to by the Revenue. It is not discernable as on what consideration, it directed stay of 60% of the amount. Similarly, the Tribunal held that there appears to be some force in the contention of the applicant and, therefore, some relief is to be granted to it. The order of the first appellate authority was modified and the stay was granted to the extent of 85% of the disputed tax liability. Again, there is no consideration of prima facie case and the other relevant factors. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Stay of recovery of disputed tax liability pending appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns revisions filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, raising common questions of facts and law related to the stay of recovery of disputed tax liability pending appeal. The applicant was assessed for different periods under the Act, and aggrieved by the orders of the assessing authority, filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal seeking stay of the tax liability. The first appellate authority initially stayed 60% of the disputed tax liability, which was later enhanced to 85% by the Tribunal. The applicant contended that the authorities erred in not considering the prima facie case, asserting that the charges in question were for services and not subject to VAT. Citing relevant case law, the applicant argued for complete stay based on strong prima facie case. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering prima facie merits in stay applications, as emphasized in various court decisions.

The High Court observed that the first appellate authority and the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the existence of a prima facie case in their orders granting partial stays. The orders lacked findings on the merits of the applicant's case, focusing instead on financial hardship and vague considerations. The Court noted the necessity for the authorities to assess the strength of the appellant's case and consider binding judgments in such matters. The judgment referenced precedents emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in stay applications, ensuring the rights of both the individual and the state are duly considered. The Court highlighted the wider connotation of "undue hardship" in such cases and the importance of maintaining a balance between revenue interests and individual rights.

Upon review of the impugned orders, the Court found them lacking in proper consideration of the prima facie case and relevant factors, leading to the decision to set aside the orders. Both the order of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were directed to be reconsidered in light of the legal principles outlined in the judgment, particularly focusing on the existence of a strong prima facie case. The Court mandated expeditious reconsideration by the first appellate authority, with a specific timeline provided for the decision. Pending the fresh decision on the stay application, the Court directed a stay on coercive measures for tax recovery against the applicant. Ultimately, the revision applications were allowed based on the above observations and directions, setting aside the previous orders for a fresh determination of the stay application.

← Previous Next →