2017 (6) TMI 1367 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Requirement to satisfy the deficit additional court fee ie; 0.5% to make it 1%, by virtue of the amendment effected as to the payment of legal benefit fund - Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT - The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking note of the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, the interest of both the sides was protected by the learned Single Judge of this Court as per Ext.P10 judgment, whereby the petitioner was required to execute a simple bond without sureties undertaking to satisfy the alleged deficit of 0.5% ie; the balance out of the total enhanced 1% if the issue comes to be decided in favour of the Government and against the assessee. It is pointed out that the appeals preferred after 1.4.2016 have to be considered in AP. ISMAIL (ANWAR TRADERS) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER 2005 (7) TMI 626 - KERALA HIGH COURT does not come to the rescue of the petitioner in such context. It is also stated that several cases are pending consideration before the learned Single Judge in this regard. - Though there is no appeal from the afore cited judgment, this Court would grant a conditional order, directing consideration of the appeal on executing a simple bond without sureties before the Assessing Officer with respect to the enhanced legal benefit fund. If at all the issue is found against the petitioner/assessee, the Assessing Officer would recover the same as tax dues and remit it to the legal benefit fund. The Original Petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment finalization under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act.
2. Requirement to satisfy additional court fee.
3. Tribunal's order on the deficit court fee.
4. Applicability of the amendment to the court fee rate.
5. Interpretation of judgments in similar cases.
6. Protection of interests pending proceedings before the Single Judge.
7. Direction to remit additional court fee for appeal consideration.
8. Granting conditional order for appeal consideration.

Analysis:
1. The case revolves around the finalization of assessment for the petitioner under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the year 2013-14. Despite filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had to approach the Tribunal due to unsatisfactory results.

2. The issue arose when the petitioner was required to satisfy additional court fee as per the amendment brought about by the Government. Initially, the petitioner had satisfied 0.5% towards the court fee, but a subsequent increase in the rate to 1% resulted in a deficit, leading to the Tribunal's order requiring the petitioner to make up for the shortfall.

3. The petitioner contended that they should not be liable for the alleged deficit as the relevant amendment came into effect after the assessment year in question. Reference was made to a previous judgment by the Court, emphasizing the timing of the regulatory changes.

4. The Government Pleader argued that appeals filed post the amendment's effective date must adhere to the revised court fee rate. The distinction was drawn between cases falling before and after the implementation of the amended rate.

5. The Court considered the implications of previous judgments, particularly one involving Ext.P4 SRO 226/2002, to assess the applicability and impact of the amendment on the petitioner's case. The legal arguments centered on the timing and scope of the regulatory modifications in relation to the assessment year.

6. Acknowledging the pending cases before the Single Judge, the Court sought to safeguard the interests of both parties. A judgment (Ext.P10) directed the petitioner to execute a bond to cover the potential deficit in court fee, ensuring a balanced approach pending final resolution.

7. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to remit the additional court fee within a specified timeframe to enable the Tribunal to consider the appeal on its merits. This approach aimed to address the procedural requirements while maintaining fairness and adherence to legal provisions.

8. In a conditional order, the Court granted the petitioner a brief period to meet the court fee obligations, emphasizing compliance with the legal framework. The conditional nature of the order allowed for the appeal to proceed for consideration by the Tribunal, with provisions for recovery in case of an adverse ruling.