2019 (7) TMI 895 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - petitioner contends that the order is passed quite mechanically without adverting to the grounds raised and without any proper application of mind with respect to merits of the appeal - quantum of interim payment - HELD THAT - Even though we are convinced that the prima facie appreciation of merit is not reflected in the impugned order, we are not proposing to remit the matter for fresh consideration and for passing fresh orders, because we are of the opinion that the appeal itself can be heard on an early date. As an equitable relief, we think it appropriate to reduce the quantum of interim payment directed, pending disposal of the appeal. Petition is disposed of by modifying the impugned order of the Tribunal by directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount due, which is disputed in the appeal and to execute a simple bound for the balance amount, within 30 days from today.

Summary

Issues: Challenge against interim order passed by the Tribunal

The judgment deals with a challenge against an interim order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax/Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner had challenged an assessment made for the year 2013-14 before the first Appellate Authority, and subsequently, in a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had required the petitioner to pay 30% of the total demand and execute a bond for the balance amount to grant interim stay against realisation of the disputed amounts. The petitioner contended that the order was passed mechanically without proper consideration of the grounds raised and the merits of the appeal.

Analysis:

The High Court acknowledged that the impugned order did not reflect a prima facie appreciation of merit. However, instead of remitting the matter for fresh consideration, the Court decided that the appeal itself could be heard on an early date. In an equitable decision, the Court modified the interim payment directed by the Tribunal, reducing it to 20% of the disputed amount. The petitioner was directed to deposit this reduced amount and execute a bond for the balance within 30 days. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal was instructed to dispose of the appeal promptly. This modification aimed to provide relief to the petitioner while ensuring the appeal process moved forward efficiently.

This judgment highlights the Court's role in balancing the interests of the parties involved in a dispute. By reducing the interim payment requirement, the Court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the financial burden imposed by the Tribunal's order. The Court's decision to proceed with the appeal without remitting the matter for fresh consideration demonstrates a pragmatic approach to expediting the resolution of the dispute. Overall, the judgment showcases the Court's commitment to fairness and efficiency in the administration of justice.