2017 (11) TMI 728 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - recovery of tax - Held that - it is true that the appeal could not have been entertained as the appellate authority had no power to condone such delay of 752 days. However, as pointed out and taking note of the other factual circumstances and also the fact that the third respondent has not enforced the recovery of tax dues, pursuant to impugned assessment proceedings, one indulgence can be granted to the petitioner, simultaneously protecting the interest by the revenue - there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax for each of the assessment years within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in contesting assessment proceedings under TNGST Act.
2. Rejection of appeal petition as time-barred.
3. Petitioner's health condition affecting contesting the assessment.
4. Failure to comply with conditional order for interim stay.
5. Consideration of petitioner's age and financial condition.
6. Validity of order passed by appellate authority.
7. Enforcement of recovery of tax dues by the Department.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a civil work contractor, missed contesting assessment proceedings under the TNGST Act, leading to a recovery notice for tax, surcharge, and penalty. The appeal petition filed by the petitioner was rejected as time-barred due to a delay of 752 days, and the appellate authority lacked power to condone the delay, resulting in the petitioner approaching the High Court.

2. An interim stay was granted on condition of paying the entire tax component, which the petitioner failed to comply with. Despite the Department not initiating recovery steps, the petitioner's financial condition was highlighted, considering the petitioner's age of over 80 years and being a small contractor with low turnover.

3. The Special Government Pleader argued the validity of the appellate authority's order due to the appeal being filed beyond the condonable period. However, considering the peculiar circumstances and the Department's inaction in enforcing tax recovery, the Court granted indulgence to the petitioner while safeguarding revenue interests, emphasizing that the decision should not set a precedent.

4. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment year within eight weeks. Compliance would allow treating assessment orders as show cause notices for submitting objections, failing which the writ petitions would be dismissed, enabling the Department to initiate recovery proceedings as per the assessment order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with connected petitions closed.