2017 (2) TMI 565 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Recovery of tax - the petitioner s stand is that, 25% of the disputed tax has already been deposited with the concerned authority - Held that - I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent/the Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals, is directed to dispose of the two appeals, pending consideration before him - Pending disposal of the appeals, it is directed that the impugned demand notice shall not be enforced against the petitioner - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to tax demand notice for assessment year 2014-2015; Pendency of separate appeals before Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals; Enforcement of demand notice pending appeal consideration.

In the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court, the petitioner challenged a tax demand notice dated 18-01-2017 amounting to ?16,57,47,615 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The demand was based on two orders - the original assessment order dated 28-09-2016 and a revisionary order dated 05-12-2016. The petitioner had filed separate appeals against these orders, which were pending consideration before the Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals. The petitioner had also deposited 25% of the disputed tax amount with the authority. The Government Advocate representing the respondent acknowledged that issuing the demand notice while the appeals were pending, especially when stay applications were submitted, might not have been appropriate.

The Court, after considering the facts and submissions, directed the Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals to dispose of the pending appeals before enforcing the demand notice. Until the appeals were decided, the Court ordered that the demand notice should not be enforced against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of in accordance with these directions, and the related miscellaneous petitions were closed without any costs being awarded.