9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1081 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRestoration of appeal which was withdrawn earlier to avail Amnesty Scheme - Held that - an assessee who wanted to avail the benefit of such Scheme needed to withdraw any appeals pending before the Competent Authorities - The petitioner had sought withdrawal of the appeals, on 28.09.2016, in order to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Withdrawal of such appeals was a precondition for the benefit of the Scheme to be extended to the assessee. The application was, therefore, moved before the Tribunal to withdraw the appeals. The Tribunal in exercise of its discretion ought to have permitted revival of the petitioner s Second Appeals namely Second Appeals Nos. 891 of 2013 and 892 of 2013, in view of the fact that the withdrawal was only prompted as it was so required. In order to get the benefit of the Scheme, the Appeals had to be withdrawn. Once the benefit was such a scheme was not extended, the withdrawal was rendered of no use. Appeals therefore needed to be restored and heard on merits - The petition is disposed of with the direction that Second Appeals No.891/2013 and 892/2013 after being so restored shall be decided on merits. The order of the Tribunal refusing restoration / revival of appeals deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Issues:
1. Withdrawal of appeals under the Amnesty Scheme 2016. 2. Restoration of withdrawn appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Discretion of the Tribunal in permitting revival of appeals. 4. Interpretation of the conditions for withdrawing appeals under the Scheme. 5. Legal remedy available to the petitioner in case of refusal to extend Scheme benefits. Issue 1: Withdrawal of appeals under the Amnesty Scheme 2016 The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, withdrew appeals before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal to avail benefits under the Amnesty Scheme 2016. The withdrawal was a precondition for the Scheme's application, as per the circular issued by the respondents. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, leading to the appeals being disposed of as withdrawn. Issue 2: Restoration of withdrawn appeals before the Tribunal Subsequently, the Commercial Tax Officer directed the petitioner to pay a substantial amount, prompting the petitioner to seek restoration of the withdrawn appeals. The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal requesting restoration, citing the denial of Scheme benefits as the reason for withdrawal. The Tribunal rejected the restoration application, stating that no liberty for revival was reserved during the withdrawal. Issue 3: Discretion of the Tribunal in permitting revival of appeals The petitioner argued for restoration, highlighting a similar case where revival was permitted if Scheme benefits were denied. The Tribunal's refusal was challenged on the grounds that the withdrawal was a procedural requirement for the Scheme, and once benefits were denied, restoration should be allowed. The Tribunal's discretion in reviving the appeals was questioned based on the circumstances of the withdrawal. Issue 4: Interpretation of the conditions for withdrawing appeals under the Scheme The High Court analyzed the circumstances leading to the withdrawal of the appeals and the subsequent denial of Scheme benefits. It held that the withdrawal was a procedural step to seek Scheme benefits and that denial of such benefits rendered the withdrawal unnecessary. The absence of a specific reservation for revival during withdrawal did not preclude the petitioner from seeking restoration. Issue 5: Legal remedy available to the petitioner in case of refusal to extend Scheme benefits The Court quashed the Tribunal's order, directing restoration of the withdrawn appeals. It emphasized that the withdrawal was a result of the Scheme's conditions and not a voluntary abandonment of the appeals. The Court restored the appeals on the Tribunal's records for a decision on merits, ensuring that the petitioner was not deprived of the opportunity to argue the appeals based on the denial of Scheme benefits. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved in the withdrawal and restoration of appeals under the Amnesty Scheme 2016, emphasizing the procedural aspects and the legal remedy available to the petitioner in seeking restoration based on the denial of Scheme benefits.
|
