9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1274 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - alternate remedy of preferring appeal - Held that - if the appeal is resorted to, any observation in the impugned order by the Single Judge on the merits of the matter may influence the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Therefore observations made by the learned Single Judge insofar as merits of the case is concerned, the same should not operate in the way of appellant in pursuing the appeal. Suffice it to say that contentions of both parties are to be considered by the Appellate Authority independently and in accordance with law - if appeal is preferred and the direction is given to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within reasonable time, the same would meet the ends of justice, more particularly, when on behalf of the respondents it was declared for no objection to decide the appeal within particular time limit - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against order under Article 226 - Entertaining petitions - Condonation of delay - Deposit of tax demand - Observations by Single Judge - Appeal before Appellate Authority - Refund of amount - Seizure of bank accounts - Directions for appeal process - Stay on recovery - Timely decision by Appellate Authority - Refund process after appeal decision. Analysis: The judgment involves multiple issues arising from an appeal against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge did not entertain the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, advising the petitioner to pursue an alternate remedy of preferring appeal, including the question of condonation of delay. The appellant, represented by Ms. Vani H., expressed a desire to appeal before the Appellate Authority, having already deposited 30% of the tax demand. The appellant sought the expunction of observations made by the Single Judge to independently pursue the appeal. The appellant aimed for a timely appeal process and potential refund due to the circumstances of bank account seizure and the significant amount involved. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, had no objection to the appeal process, provided the Appellate Authority decides independently without being influenced by the Single Judge's observations. He agreed to a one-month period for the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal and acknowledged the possibility of a refund if the appellant succeeds in the appeal. The High Court recognized the Single Judge's decision for an alternate forum of appeal and refrained from addressing the observations made by the Single Judge, emphasizing the need for an impartial appeal process. The High Court highlighted the importance of the Appellate Authority deciding the appeal independently and in accordance with the law, without being swayed by any previous observations. The Court directed the appellant to prefer the appeal within fifteen days, stayed further recovery until the appeal decision, and instructed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal promptly, preferably within one month of filing. The Court also ordered the expunction of the Single Judge's observations on the merits of the case and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the matter independently. The refund process, if applicable, was outlined, ensuring the appropriation or refund of the amount deposited by the appellant based on the Appellate Authority's decision. In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the appeal, issuing specific directions for the appeal process, recovery stay, timely decision by the Appellate Authority, and refund procedures post-appeal decision. The judgment focused on ensuring a fair and impartial appeal process, independent of any previous observations, to meet the ends of justice.
|
