2015 (12) TMI 1138 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Auction of petitioner s property - Held that - in respect of the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation, the petitioner has moved an application for restoration, which is still pending before the concerned authority. During the pendency of the said application, the respondents have resorted to auction of the properties of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the interests of justice would be met if the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-7) is directed to decide the restoration application pending before him within a stipulated period and till then the petitioner may be protected by restraining the respondents from taking any further coercive steps. Since the petitioner had not moved any application for condonation of delay along with the restoration application, it would be open for the petitioner to move such application. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 challenging order for auction of properties due to tax assessment, appeal dismissed as time-barred, restoration application pending, auction of properties initiated before restoration decision.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 226 challenging an order for auction of properties due to tax assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1979. The initial proceedings culminated in an ex parte order dated 27th March, 2007. Subsequently, the petitioner's appeals were dismissed on 28th November, 2013, citing limitation as the ground. The petitioner then filed a restoration application on 29th January, 2014, which is still pending. Notably, no application for condonation of delay was filed along with the restoration application. Despite this, the respondents proceeded with the auction of the petitioner's properties, prompting the petitioner to seek relief through the present petition.

The court, after hearing both parties, observed that the restoration application is still pending before the concerned authority. In light of this, the court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-7) to decide the restoration application within six weeks from the date of the order. Until a decision is reached on the restoration application, the court restrained the respondents from taking any further coercive steps against the petitioner. Importantly, the court highlighted that the petitioner has the option to file an application for condonation of delay along with the restoration application. The judgment aimed to ensure that the interests of justice are served by allowing due process to take place before any further actions are taken against the petitioner.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with a direction for the expeditious decision on the restoration application within a stipulated period, ensuring the petitioner is afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The court discharged the notice with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a fair and timely resolution of the pending restoration application.