2019 (5) TMI 1335 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Section 25(1) of KVAT Act - HELD THAT - The respondent is directed to dispose of Exts.P3 and P3(a) appeals as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in disposal of appeals (Exts.P3 and P3(a)).
2. Issuance of notices under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act (Exts.P5 and P5(a)).
3. Dependency of proceedings in Exts.P5 and P5(a) on the outcome of the appeals.
4. Request for a stay on further proceedings in Exts.P5 and P5(a).
5. Disagreement on the parallel nature of the proceedings under appeal and the enquiry under Exts.P5 and P5(a).
6. Legal precedent cited regarding the pendency of penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was aggrieved by assessment orders in Ext.P1 and P1(a) and filed appeals (Exts.P3 and P3(a)). The petitioner claimed that the appellate authority did not consider the appeals promptly, leading to the issuance of notices under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act (Exts.P5 and P5(a)). The petitioner sought a direction to dispose of the appeals (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) and requested a stay on all further proceedings in Exts.P5 and P5(a).

2. The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated through Exts.P5 and P5(a) were dependent on the outcome of the appeals. The petitioner expressed concerns about facing hardship and injustice if Exts.P5 and P5(a) were concluded before the appeals were addressed.

3. The Senior Government Pleader contended that the petitioner's understanding of the parallel proceedings was incorrect. He emphasized that the proceedings under Exts.P5 and P5(a) were independent and based on sufficient evidence. The Pleader highlighted that the petitioner could participate in the enquiry initiated through Exts.P5 and P5(a) by filing objections. He referred to an unreported decision in a related case and opposed the stay on further proceedings under Exts.P5 and P5(a).

4. After considering the arguments from both parties and reviewing the record, the Court referred to a previous Division Bench decision in W.A. No.688 of 2017. The Court noted the nature of assessment and penalty proceedings in that case. As a result, the Court directed the respondent to dispose of the appeals Exts.P3 and P3(a) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court's decision was influenced by the conclusion reached in the previous case, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution of the appeals.