2019 (8) TMI 907 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - Stay of collection and recovery of the disputed amount of tax, pending disposal of the second appeals - condition imposed for deposit of part amount for grant of stay - case of petitioner is that that, the impugned orders are passed in a totally mechanical manner without adverting to the grounds raised in the appeals - HELD THAT - Any advertance to the merits of the appeal is not reflected in the impugned orders. However, we are not proposing to remit the interim applications for fresh consideration and disposal, which will only lead to multiplicity of proceedings. We are of the opinion that the appeals itself can be directed to be heard and disposed of on an early basis. As an equitable relief, we think it appropriate to reduce the percentage of deposit insisted upon for granting the stay - the petition is disposed of by modifying Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders passed by the third respondent tribunal to the extent of directing deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand and to execute the simple bond for the balance amount, within thirty days from today.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to interim orders passed by tribunal regarding stay of tax collection pending disposal of second appeals.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged interim orders passed by the tribunal seeking stay of tax collection pending disposal of second appeals for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The tribunal had granted stay subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 30% of the total demand and executing a bond for the balance amount within thirty days. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed mechanically without considering the grounds raised in the appeals and without proper application of mind. It was argued that the reasoning of no payment made so far should not be the sole basis for imposing conditions for granting stay.

The High Court, after hearing the Government Pleader for the respondent, acknowledged that the impugned orders lacked consideration of the merits of the appeal. However, instead of remitting the matter for fresh consideration to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court decided to address the issue by directing the appeals to be heard and disposed of expeditiously. As an equitable relief, the Court modified the percentage of deposit required for granting the stay from 30% to 20% of the disputed demand, with a condition to execute a bond for the balance amount within thirty days.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the original petition by modifying the tribunal's orders, reducing the deposit percentage required for the stay. The tribunal was instructed to prioritize the disposal of appeals upon compliance with the revised deposit conditions. This judgment aimed to strike a balance between the interests of the petitioner and the need for expeditious resolution of the appeals, ensuring fairness in the proceedings.