2017 (4) TMI 676 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings - The case of the department is that Form-C by which the petitioner has been given the benefit of 4% tax rebate was not liable to be given to the petitioner, and therefore, the proceedings for reassessment were initiated - The case of the petitioner would be that once his appeals have been admitted regarding the recovery stay, the appellate court ought to have stayed the proceedings for recovery - Held that - under the statute an appeal can only be heard if the statutory award under sub-section (4) of Section 51 of the Act is first deposited. This has not been done. No relief as sought by the petitioner can therefore be granted - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging reassessment proceedings under Section 29 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act for two different assessment years.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 29 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13. The Act allows for reassessment under Section 29 if the Assessing Authority believes that turnover has escaped assessment, been under-assessed, assessed at a lower rate, or wrongly allowed exemptions. The reassessment proceedings were initiated with the Commissioner's permission and reasons were provided for the reassessment.

The department's case centered on the contention that the petitioner was erroneously granted a 4% tax rebate through Form-C, leading to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The petitioner challenged the reassessment orders in appeals pending before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) II, Commercial Tax, Haridwar. The petitioner was directed to deposit specified amounts against the reassessment orders, which were not complied with, resulting in recovery proceedings and subsequent appeals for stay.

The primary issue before the Court was the petitioner's failure to deposit the required amounts pending appeal, as mandated by Section 51(4) of the Act. The State argued that without compliance with this provision, the appeal could not be entertained, and no stay on recovery could be granted. The petitioner's argument that the appeal had been admitted was countered by the necessity of depositing the tax due before the appeal could be heard, which had not been fulfilled in this case.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the statutory requirement of depositing the tax amount before the appeal could be entertained. The failure of the petitioner to comply with this provision led to the rejection of stay applications and the dismissal of the petitions. The judgment upheld the legal necessity of fulfilling statutory requirements for appeal consideration, despite the admission of the petitioner's appeal.