2019 (8) TMI 480 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Best judgement assessment - imposition of interest as well as penalty - non-production of books - HELD THAT - During the pendency of the present appeal, respondent department started recovery proceedings and initiated coercive steps due to which one of the partners of the firm (Rakesh Mohindra) deposited amount of ₹ 92 lacs with the department. It is further averred that the appellant does not want to pursue the present appeal and hence the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues: Delay in refiling appeal, assessment by ETO-cum-Assessing Authority, appeal before DETC(Appeals)UT Chandigarh, Reference Applications before VAT Tribunal, Chandigarh, dismissal of appeals by respondent no.3, recovery proceedings by respondent department.

The judgment addresses the issue of delay in refiling the appeal, which was condoned due to its insignificance. The main case involves a partnership concern running a Filling Station in Chandigarh, registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The concern had not been allotted a number under the VAT Act, 2005, and faced assessment by the ETO-cum-Assessing Authority for non-filing of returns for two quarters of the Accounting Period/Assessment Year 2003-04. The assessment was done on best-judgment-basis, imposing penalties and interest. An appeal was filed under Section 20 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 before DETC(Appeals)UT Chandigarh, along with an application for hearing without depositing the additional demand. The DETC(Appeals)UT Chandigarh directed the concern to deposit 25% of the amount involved within a specified time, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. Subsequent appeals and Reference Applications before the VAT Tribunal, Chandigarh were dismissed due to delays and non-deposit of the required amount.

The judgment further discusses the dismissal of the appeals by respondent no.3, which had already been dismissed earlier due to non-compliance with the deposit requirement. The appellant filed the present appeal to refer the question of law arising from the order dated 22.5.2018 by respondent no.3. An application was filed during the pendency of the appeal, stating that recovery proceedings were initiated by the respondent department, leading to one partner of the firm depositing a substantial amount with the department. The appellant expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn based on the application filed.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses various procedural aspects, including delays in filing appeals, assessment procedures, deposit requirements for appeals, and the consequences of non-compliance with such requirements. The dismissal of appeals due to non-deposit of the required amount and the subsequent withdrawal of the appeal during recovery proceedings are significant aspects covered in the judgment.