2018 (12) TMI 540 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non-compliance with pre-deposit - appellant pleads for some more time to comply with the Tribunal s directions - Held that - This Court will not interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal in imposing any condition to sustain a stay, more particularly when that discretion has a statutory sanction. Nevertheless, given the persistent plea the petitioner s counsel advanced about the petitioner s acute financial problems, this Court may take considerate view of the situation. Petition disposed off holding that the petitioner shall deposit the amount as the Tribunal directed, in three equal monthly instalments.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment proceedings challenged in second appeal before Tribunal - Interim order to deposit 20% and furnish security - Writ petition filed for relief.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer under the KVAT Act, challenged assessment proceedings by filing a second appeal along with petitions for stay before the 3rd respondent Tribunal. An interim order was passed by the Tribunal, requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% and provide security for the remaining amount. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed to challenge this order.

The petitioner's counsel initially highlighted the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner but requested additional time to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding the pre-deposit and security. The counsel assured that the petitioner would adhere to the pre-deposit condition if granted some breathing space.

The Court acknowledged the Tribunal's discretion in imposing conditions for granting a stay, especially when such discretion is supported by statutory provisions. Despite this, considering the persistent plea made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the petitioner's severe financial constraints, the Court decided to take a compassionate approach.

Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the petitioner must deposit the specified amount in three equal monthly instalments as directed by the Tribunal. Failure to pay any single instalment within the stipulated time would empower the Tribunal to take further action in the matter. This decision aimed to balance the petitioner's financial challenges with the need to comply with the Tribunal's directives.