2015 (2) TMI 1314 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Delay in compliance with the pre-deposit - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that after the disposalof the appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the appellant had deposited the pre-deposit as directed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam. The High Court ought to have condone the delay in complying with the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam and should have directed him to decide the appeal on merits. Since that has not been done by the High Court, we take exception to the said order. The appeal filed by the appellant-herein is restored to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam to decide the same on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to pay pre-deposit of disputed tax demand leading to rejection of appeal.
2. High Court's dismissal of writ petition based on non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement.
3. Delay in depositing pre-deposit amount after appeal disposal.
4. High Court's failure to condone the delay and direct appeal decision on merits.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant's failure to pay the pre-deposit of the disputed tax demand, resulting in the rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging this decision.

2. The High Court, relying on a previous judgment, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. This led to the appellant appealing to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

3. The appellant, after the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, eventually deposited the pre-deposit amount as directed. The Supreme Court noted this delay in compliance but recognized that the pre-deposit had been made.

4. The Supreme Court held that in such a scenario, the High Court should have condoned the delay in complying with the order and directed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal on its merits. Since the High Court failed to do so, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order.

5. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the appeal filed by the appellant before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam, instructing that it be decided on its merits. The Court kept all contentions of both parties open in its order, ensuring a fair consideration of the case moving forward.