2010 (12) TMI 1338 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing the order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the CAT.
2. Commanding the CAT to admit and decide the original application on merit.
3. Indulgence against the CAT's order flouting the High Court's order dated March 3, 2009.
4. Issuance of any other writ, direction, or order deemed fit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing the order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the CAT
The Petitioners sought to quash the CAT's order dated 07.05.2009, which declined to admit their Original Application (O.A.) on the grounds of limitation. The High Court had previously directed the CAT to dispose of the O.A. on merits if filed within two months from the order dated 03.03.2009.

Issue 2: Commanding the CAT to admit and decide the original application on merit
The Petitioners argued that the CAT violated the High Court's order dated 03.03.2009 by not disposing of the O.A. on merits. The High Court had explicitly directed that the O.A. should be disposed of in accordance with law on merits, and it was not open for the CAT to interpret the order otherwise.

Issue 3: Indulgence against the CAT's order flouting the High Court's order dated March 3, 2009
The Petitioners contended that the CAT's decision to dismiss the O.A. on the ground of limitation was in contempt of the High Court's order. The High Court emphasized that the CAT should have adhered to the directive to decide the matter on merits, and the CAT's action bordered on contempt of the High Court's order.

Issue 4: Issuance of any other writ, direction, or order deemed fit
The High Court noted that the CAT should have provided a complete hearing to both parties and should have kept the petition pending if the reliefs sought were similar to those in the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court set aside the CAT's impugned order and remitted the case back to the CAT, directing it to decide the O.A. in terms of the High Court's order dated 03.03.2009. The CAT was instructed to hear the matter within two months and decide based on whether the reliefs and grounds were substantially different from those in the pending Special Leave Petition.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the High Court setting aside the CAT's order and directing the CAT to restore the O.A. to its original number and decide it on merits as per the High Court's previous order. The CAT was also cautioned to ensure judicial propriety and provide a complete hearing to the parties involved.