2020 (4) TMI 887 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - requirement to comply with the pre-deposit - demand of 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax - HELD THAT - Division Bench of this court in the case of SRI HARI MAHARALAYAM COMPANY VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER LALAPETA CIRCLE AND OTHERS 2019 (9) TMI 1550 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT while mentioning that the pre-deposit of part of the disputed tax is required only when the appeal is filed against the assessment order and since no tax is quantified under the endorsement held that the insistence of the authorities to pay 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal against the endorsement is untenable. The second respondent is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner against the endorsement of the first respondent without insisting for payment of 12.5 per cent of disputed tax - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admittance of appeal without payment of disputed tax.
2. Validity of check memo issued by the second respondent.
3. Requirement of pre-deposit for entertaining appeals against endorsements.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to admit the appeal without requiring payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner, a registered dealer, faced a demand of ?1,63,48,899 due to missing forms and documents. Despite submitting the necessary documents post-assessment, the first respondent denied exemption on exports. The petitioner appealed to the second respondent, who then demanded proof of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner argued that since the appeal was against an endorsement and not an assessment order, the payment was unnecessary. Citing a previous court order, the petitioner contended that pre-deposit is only mandatory for appeals against assessment orders.

2. The High Court acknowledged the undisputed facts and the legal position established in a previous judgment. Referring to a Division Bench decision, the court highlighted that pre-deposit is required only when appealing against an assessment order where tax is quantified. As the present appeal was against an endorsement without a quantified tax, the insistence on payment was deemed untenable. The petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes agreed that the previous court order applied to the current case.

3. Considering the precedent and the submissions of both parties, the High Court allowed the writ petition. The impugned check memo issued by the second respondent was set aside, directing the second respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal against the first respondent's endorsement without demanding the 12.5% pre-deposit. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications were closed without any costs being awarded.