2018 (8) TMI 66 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Validity of assessment orders - Form 18 declarations produced by the assessee being not genuine - concessional rate of tax - Held that - We need not look into the facts or the sustainability of Exhibit P4 as of now, since the appellant is guilty of laches on account of the long delay. The appellant is said to have filed an appeal itself in the year 2011, belatedly too. The pre-condition of deposit of the tax demanded was also not satisfied. The appellant also did not choose to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution at that point - The writ petition itself is filed in the year 2018. The appeal cannot be entertained and is thus dismissed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 17D of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 1963.
2. Validity of assessment orders for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04.
3. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal under Section 17D.
4. Allegation of Form 18 declarations being not genuine.
5. Consideration of Exhibit P4 in the case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, challenged an assessment carried out in 2010 under Section 17D of the Act. Section 17D was introduced during the transition from the KGST Act to the KVAT regime to settle assessments under the previous tax regime. The provision required assessments to be completed by a team of officers known as the "Fast Track Team" and allowed appeals only to the Tribunal within a specific time frame. The appellant's appeal was grossly delayed, and the pre-condition of depositing the tax demanded was not met, leading to the rejection of the appeal in 2015.

2. The assessment orders in question pertained to the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, with allegations against the appellant regarding the authenticity of Form 18 declarations and the eligibility for concessional tax rates. Despite the appellant's argument that transactions were accounted for and taxes paid based on Exhibit P4, the delay in filing the appeal and non-compliance with procedural requirements were highlighted by the court.

3. The court emphasized that the mere fact that another dealer accounted for transactions did not absolve the appellant from liability, especially when the authenticity of Form 18 declarations was in question. The appellant's delay in filing the appeal, including a belated appeal in 2011 and failure to approach the court earlier, contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. Exhibit P4, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer in 2013, was considered in the context of the overall delay in seeking legal recourse. The court found the appellant guilty of laches due to the significant delay between the issuance of Exhibit P4 and the filing of the writ petition in 2018. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the appeal, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissing the Writ Appeal, with each party bearing their respective costs.

← Previous Next →