2020 (9) TMI 219 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative appellate remedy - requirement of pre-deposit being the pre-condition to entertain the appeal - HELD THAT - During the hearing, it was pointed out that, before the Division Bench, where the writ appeals were originally heard, at the time of admission on 28.11.2019, the learned counsel for the assessee had offered to deposit 10% of the demand made in the impugned assessment for invocation of the statutory remedy before the appellate authority - The said offer was made voluntarily on the side of the assessee, of course, in the context of conditions imposed under the relevant provisions of the TNVAT Act to deposit 25% of the demand/tax due, as pre-deposit being the pre-condition to entertain the appeal. Only in order to get instructions to that offer made by the assessee side, the counsel appeared on behalf of the revenue seems to have taken time and only at that stage those writ appeals came to be disposed by our Division Bench in the common order dated 05.12.2019. The impugned assessment order and the impugned demand dated 12.07.2019 made by the assessing authority for the assessment years 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, which are impugned in the respective writ petitions, which are the subject matter in the appeal are hereby set aside - Consequently, the matters are remitted back to the assessing authority for reassessment. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Review applications against order dated 05.12.2019 - Availability of alternative appellate remedy - Dismissal of writ petitions - Intra Court appeals - Special Leave Petitions - Review petitions - Pre-deposit for statutory remedy - Consent order for remand of issue to assessing authority - Deposit of 20% of tax due - Reassessment process - Disputed demand - Disposal of writ petitions and appeals.

Analysis:
The review applications were filed against the order dated 05.12.2019, which dealt with the availability of alternative appellate remedy for the assessee. Initially, the assessee had filed writ petitions challenging the assessment orders made by the revenue for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy, directing the assessee to file necessary appeals within four weeks. Subsequently, intra Court appeals were filed against this decision. However, the Division Bench also rejected these appeals on the same ground, extending the period for filing appeals by four weeks. The assessee then filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court, which granted liberty to approach the High Court by way of review petitions.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the assessee had voluntarily offered to deposit 10% of the demand made in the assessment for invoking the statutory remedy before the appellate authority. The counsel for the revenue took time to consider this offer, which led to the disposal of the writ appeals by the Division Bench. The learned counsel for the assessee expressed willingness to make a lesser percentage of deposit if the issue could be raised before the appellate authority without the 25% pre-deposit requirement. The Special Government Pleader for the revenue suggested a deposit of 20% of the tax due, indicating readiness for reassessment by the assessing authority.

A consensus was reached between the parties, with both the assessee and revenue agreeing to remand the issue to the assessing authority on the condition that 20% of the tax due demanded through the impugned demand would be deposited within four months. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment orders and demands, remitting the matters back for reassessment. The Court clarified that the four-month period was an outer limit for deposit, allowing the assessee to pay in installments. The reassessment process would enable the assessee to submit documents and raise grounds against the impugned demand. The deposit was made subject to the reassessment order and any further decisions by the Departmental authorities.

In light of the consensus and submissions made, the Court disposed of the review applications, along with the related writ petitions and appeals, as per the terms outlined in the order. No costs were awarded in this matter.