2020 (1) TMI 576 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay of about more than 5 years - reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the Respondent before the First Appellate Authority - requirement with the pre-deposit - Gujarat VAT Act - HELD THAT - As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, there is not even a whisper therein with regard to condonation of delay - From the submissions made by the learned Government representative before the Tribunal, it is evident that no submission has been made as regards the condonation of delay. It therefore, appears that the delay was probably condoned prior to the second appeal being taken up for hearing before the Tribunal. Question regarding condonation of delay therefore, cannot be said to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that though reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the Respondent before the First Appellate Authority, despite which the Learned Tribunal remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Authority? - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has accepted the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the respondent and found that the amount of ₹ 6,25,000/- deposited by the respondent towards pre-deposit which comes to approximately 50% of the tax amount, is sufficient pre-deposit and has allowed the appeal and directed the first appellate authority to hear the appeal preferred before it on merits. The quantum of amount of pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal, on the facts of the present case, appears to be quite adequate. Under the circumstances, no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal under section 78 of the GVAT Act.
2. Delay condonation and appreciation of reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3. Dismissal of appeal by the first appellate authority due to non-payment of pre-deposit.
4. Tribunal's direction to hear the appeal on merits and adequacy of pre-deposit amount.
5. Grounds reiterated by the Assistant Government Pleader.
6. Absence of delay condonation in the impugned order.
7. Tribunal's acceptance of the pre-deposit amount as sufficient.
8. Court's opinion on the adequacy of the pre-deposit amount.
9. Dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of a legal question.

Analysis:
The appellant, the State of Gujarat, challenged the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal's order under section 78 of the GVAT Act, raising questions regarding delay condonation and the appreciation of the opportunity to be heard. The respondent had appealed to the first appellate authority, seeking waiver of pre-deposit, but was directed to deposit a specific amount. Despite depositing a partial sum and requesting waiver of the balance, the appeal was dismissed for non-payment. Subsequently, the Tribunal set aside the first authority's decision, directing a hearing on merits within six months and granting a stay on recovery. The Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the appeal grounds, but the Tribunal's order did not address delay condonation, indicating it was likely resolved earlier. The Tribunal accepted the partial pre-deposit as sufficient, leading to the appeal's allowance for a merit-based hearing. The court found the pre-deposit amount adequate and lacking any legal question, resulting in the appeal's summary dismissal.