2018 (3) TMI 1532 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal was right in confirming dismissal of appeal by the first appellate authority in default when the first appellate authority itself entertained the appeal after the compliance of the order of the Tribunal by paying first instalment and filing of Bank Guarantee for the rest of the amount? Held that - Admittedly, the appellant has now deposited all the installments. Since there was a delay in depositing the installments, the appellant had also paid interest amounting to ₹ 10,72,500/- on 8.8.2017. The matter is remanded to the JETC(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with order of the Tribunal regarding payment of additional demand and furnishing security.
2. Dismissal of appeal by the first appellate authority for non-compliance.
3. Requirement to continue paying installments after appeal is entertained.
4. Interpretation of settled law regarding payment conditions for appeal.
5. Assessment validity and communication of notices.
6. Dismissal of appeal based on the nature of the appellant's business activities.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the additional demand of &8377; 50,70,578/- for the assessment year 1984-85. The JETC (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the Tribunal's order of payment and security. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. However, the appellant eventually deposited all installments with interest. The High Court set aside the previous orders and remanded the matter to the JETC(A) for a decision on merits.

2. The key issue was the delay in complying with the payment and security requirements set by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. The appellant argued that all installments were now paid, including interest, and requested a review of the dismissal. The State counsel acknowledged the payments made by the appellant.

3. The appellant questioned the necessity of continuing to pay installments after the appeal was entertained and judgment reserved. The High Court did not address this specific issue in its judgment.

4. The interpretation of settled law regarding payment conditions for appeal was raised by the appellant. The High Court did not delve into this aspect but focused on the compliance and remand for a decision on merits.

5. Concerns regarding the validity of assessment and communication of notices were raised by the appellant, highlighting issues with the initiation of proceedings, framing of assessment, and communication during the appellant's closed business period. The High Court did not provide detailed analysis on these points but focused on the compliance issue.

6. Lastly, the dismissal of the appeal based on the nature of the appellant's business activities, involving job work without property transfer, was mentioned. The High Court did not address this issue directly but focused on the compliance aspect and remand for further proceedings.