2015 (10) TMI 974 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of impugned order - Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution - Held that - Tribunal was requested to correct its order and on the ground that it causes prejudice. There as well the Tribunal found that despite several opportunities, no evidence could be produced with regard to the destruction of books of accounts in floods and that plea, therefore, is not substantiated. Surely, this is not a case where the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Balaji Steel ReRolling Mills (2014 (11) TMI 531 - SUPREME COURT) would come to the aid or assistance of the petitioner. Once the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority is not for want of prosecution or for want of attendance but by dealing with the merits of the matter including the claim that there are no records available because of destruction by floods, then, the principle in Balaji Steel ReRolling Mills (supra) can have no application. That was a case where the Hon ble Supreme Court found that the dismissal for want of prosecution simplicitor and without any adjudication on merits, is a course impermissible and unknown to the appellate power under the Income Tax Act,1961, the Central Excise Act,1944 and which are pari materia provisions. This judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court and equally our orders following it, cannot have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is distinguishable. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Appellate Authority under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner contested the dismissal of their appeal by the Appellate Authority for non-prosecution, citing statutory provisions under the Bombay Sales Tax Act,1959 and Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act,2002. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority lacked the power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as it contravened the provisions of Section 55(7)(a) to (c) of the Acts. The petitioner claimed serious prejudice due to the dismissal and sought the High Court's intervention to restore the appeal for fresh consideration. The petitioner relied heavily on a judgment of the Supreme Court in a related case to support their argument.

The Respondent, representing the Revenue, supported the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, contending that the order was based on merits rather than solely for non-prosecution. The Respondent argued that the petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting their claim of record destruction in floods, which was a crucial aspect of the case. The Respondent emphasized that the dismissal was not solely due to non-prosecution but was a result of the lack of substantiated evidence and interest shown by the petitioner during the proceedings.

Upon detailed examination, the Court observed that the petitioner, a Limited Company under financial distress, failed to substantiate their claim of record destruction in floods adequately. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority's decision was based on the merits of the case, including the lack of evidence provided by the petitioner. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal had given multiple opportunities to the petitioner to present evidence, which the petitioner failed to do effectively. The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal was not solely due to non-prosecution but was a result of the lack of substantiated claims and evidence by the petitioner. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner, emphasizing that the circumstances were different, and the principles applied in the cited case did not align with the current situation.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the Writ Petition and dismissed it without any order as to costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing substantiated evidence and active participation in legal proceedings to support claims effectively.