2016 (1) TMI 469 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - the condition under Section 62 (5) of the PVAT Act requiring pre-deposit of 25% of the tax, interest and penalty assessed additionally. No authority under the Act has been empowered to waive off the condition even in cases where the petitioner is unable to make the payment due to real hardship - Held that - writ petition has been filed without even filing an appeal. In such a situation, the requirement of deposit of 25% of the amount as a pre-condition under Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act for hearing the appeal before the first appellate authority does not apply. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that it shall be open for the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of assessment in accordance with the provisions of the PVAT Act and also an application for interim protection/injunction from the requirement of pre-deposit of 25% of the amount - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the requirement of predeposit of 25% of additional demand for hearing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the vires of Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and sought a direction to waive the condition of predeposit for hearing the appeal. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the purchase and sale of medicines and medical equipment, faced an assessment resulting in a demand of Rs. 41,40,860 due to discrepancies found during an inspection. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court order staying the operation of Section 62(5) as interim protection. The petitioner was unable to appeal the assessment due to the predeposit requirement of 25% of the tax, interest, and penalty assessed additionally, claiming real hardship. The court noted the petition was filed without appealing the assessment, clarifying that the predeposit condition did not apply in such a situation. The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment under the PVAT Act and apply for interim protection from the predeposit requirement, referencing a previous judgment on a similar issue.

This judgment addressed the challenge to the vires of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act and the predeposit requirement for hearing appeals before the first appellate authority. The court emphasized the need to follow proper procedures, highlighting that the predeposit condition does not apply when a petition is filed without an appeal. The judgment allowed the petitioner to pursue an appeal against the assessment and apply for interim protection from the predeposit requirement. The court's decision was based on procedural requirements and previous rulings on similar matters, ensuring the petitioner's right to appeal and seek relief from the predeposit condition.