2017 (8) TMI 86 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Shortage of stock - Held that - We are, infact, informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that neither any reply has been filed nor has any application been filed with Tribunal, to bring the issue articulated before us, which is that, the appeal is not maintainable, to its notice - the instant writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner, to approach the Tribunal, either by filing a reply or an appropriate application, bringing to its notice, the submission made before us, that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable, against the order of the AAC (CT) - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to the proceedings of Tax Appeal No.9/2016 before the Pondicherry Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Puducherry as non-est in law and null and void.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The petitioner, a Timber Trader, faced discrepancies in stock during an inspection by the Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry. The Department alleged a tax liability of ?9,46,58,997 due to unaccounted stock. The petitioner explained that the differential stock was stored elsewhere, but the explanation was not accepted, leading to an assessment order.

2. Appeal Process:
The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) and succeeded. However, the Revenue then appealed to the Puducherry Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the AAC's order. An interim order staying the AAC's decision was issued, and the appeal was scheduled for hearing.

3. Legal Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal under Section 49 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007, was not maintainable as "any person" in the Act did not include the Revenue. This argument was supported by referencing Section 58 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and a relevant judgment of the Madras High Court.

4. Court's Decision:
The Court noted the delay in filing the writ petition after the Revenue's appeal and the petitioner's failure to raise the issue before the Tribunal. Despite this, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with the maintainability argument. The Tribunal was instructed to address this as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the case.

5. Future Proceedings:
The petitioner was granted liberty to raise other preliminary issues before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to decide on all preliminary issues, including the maintainability challenge. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely raising legal issues before the appropriate forum and the need for procedural compliance in challenging administrative decisions through the legal process.