2019 (7) TMI 1091 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - Validity of assessments - main contentions raised were that, the appellant was not actually heard on 06.06.2019, as stated in the impugned orders - condition for payment of 20% of the demands - HELD THAT - The impugned order does not reflect any reasons for imposition of the condition. Nor it reflects any advertence to the contentions raised in the appeal - At any rate, we do not find that the insistence for payment of 20% of the demand, is in any manner unreasonable or arbitrary, especially in view of Section 55(4) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. But, it is only just and proper in the interest of justice that payments or recovery if any already effected out of the disputed liability, need to be given credit while fixing such condition. Matters remitted to the Appellate Authority for passing of fresh interim orders on taking note of the contention with respect to realisation of a part of the liability. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to interim stay orders in statutory appeals, failure to apply mind to merits of appeals, insistence on payment of 20% of demands, lack of reasons for imposition of condition, credit for amount already recovered, remittance of matters to Appellate Authority for fresh interim orders.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged interim stay orders in statutory appeals concerning assessments finalized against them. The main contentions included the appellant not being heard as claimed, failure of the Appellate Authority to consider the merits of the appeals, and the mechanical insistence on payment of 20% of the demands. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, stating the appellant was heard and upheld the condition for payment. However, the Single Judge allowed payment in installments and deferred coercive recovery steps.

During the appeal, it was reiterated that no hearing took place on the specified date. The Government pleader mentioned that although the appeals were not scheduled for that day, representatives of the appellant were present and heard by the authority. The Court found merit in the argument that the condition was imposed mechanically without reasons or consideration of appeal contentions. Despite this, the Court deemed the 20% payment condition not unreasonable, citing the relevant statute. However, it was deemed just to credit any amount already recovered from the disputed liability when imposing this condition.

Consequently, the Court decided to remit the matters back to the Appellate Authority for fresh interim orders, considering the amount already realized from the disputed liability. The Writ Appeals were allowed to modify the impugned judgments, with the orders remitted for reconsideration. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass fresh orders or dispose of the appeals within three weeks, keeping coercive recovery steps on hold until compliance. The Writ Appeals were disposed of subject to the mentioned directions.