2016 (12) TMI 1020 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - non-deposit of amount of pre-deposit - Held that - on non-compliance of the order dated 4/4/2016 on non deposit of the amount of pre-deposit as per the order dated 4/4/2016, when the learned tribunal has dismissed the appeal, thereafter it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error - when the appellant has failed to deposit ₹ 29,29,979/- towards the amount of pre-deposit as ordered earlier vide order dated 4/4/2016 and when the learned tribunal has dismissed the said appeal on non-deposit of amount of pre-deposit, no substantial question of law arise - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal on non-deposit of pre-deposit amount
2. Validity of directing appellant to deposit specific amount for stay order
3. Lack of reasons for imposing deposit condition
4. Alleged error in not appreciating illegality of lower appellate authority's order

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged an order by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal which dismissed their appeal for failure to pay the pre-deposit amount. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the tribunal's decision, arguing that they were not required to make the deposit as per the law and facts of the case. The tribunal's order was based on the non-payment of the pre-deposit amount of ?29,29,979 related to disallowed input tax credit on purchases from a specific company.

2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) raised a demand of ?94,08,163 against the appellant, including ?29,29,979 for disallowed input tax credit. The first appellate authority upheld the A.O.'s decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the disputed amount as a pre-deposit for a stay order, which the appellant failed to comply with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The appellant argued that the tribunal erred in not providing reasons for imposing the deposit condition and failing to consider the merits of the case. The appellant contended that they provided evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions, but the tribunal's decision did not take this into account.

4. The court upheld the tribunal's decision, stating that the appellant did not challenge the order for the pre-deposit amount before the dismissal of the appeal. The court found no error in the tribunal's direction to deposit the specific amount, considering the lack of evidence proving the genuineness of transactions and the appellant's failure to comply with the tribunal's order.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal based on the non-payment of the pre-deposit amount. The court found no reason to interfere with the tribunal's judgment, as the appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement and did not establish the genuineness of the transactions in question.