2019 (9) TMI 1550 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - requirement to comply with the pre-deposit - petitioner's request to receive H forms was rejected - rejection on the ground that the H forms cannot be received after the assessment order is once passed - HELD THAT - No tax is quantified under the endorsement. If only an appeal is filed against the assessment order, the petitioner is required to make a pre-deposit of part of the disputed tax. Since no tax is quantified under the endorsement, the insistence of the second respondent to pay 12.5 per cent. of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal against endorsement is untenable - this view of the petitioner merits consideration. The second respondent is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner against the endorsement of the first respondent without insisting upon payment of 12.5 per cent. of the disputed tax - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to receive H forms after assessment order is passed.
2. Insistence upon payment of 12.5% of disputed tax for entertaining appeal.
3. Legal position on belated filing of H forms under the CST Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of H forms by the first respondent after the assessment order was passed. The petitioner argued that as per settled legal position, H forms filed belatedly can still be received. The first respondent's refusal led to a demand of a substantial amount, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal against the decision.

2. The second issue revolved around the insistence of the second respondent on the payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax as a condition for entertaining the appeal against the endorsement. The petitioner contended that since no tax amount was quantified under the endorsement, the demand for pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax was unjustified. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes did not contest the facts or legal position presented by the petitioner.

3. The Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the material record, found merit in the petitioner's request. The judgment allowed the writ petition and directed the second respondent to entertain the appeal without requiring the payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The Court emphasized that in cases where no tax amount is specified in the endorsement, insisting on a pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal is untenable. The decision was made in light of the legal position regarding the acceptance of belatedly filed H forms under the CST Act.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Andhra Pradesh High Court highlights the legal issues, arguments presented by the parties, and the final decision rendered by the Court.