2020 (9) TMI 346 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty Order - Stay, on condition that the petitioner furnished a simple bond to cover the disputed amount - limited prayer of the petitioner at this stage is for a direction to the respondents to accept the bond offered by him and to direct the Tribunal to dispose the appeal expeditiously - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner was granted a stay against recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. The only lapse on the part of the petitioner appears to have been the non-furnishing of the bond within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute however that Ext.P7 bond was subsequently offered before the respondent authority, but the said authority refused to accept the bond since it was preferred beyond the time stipulated by the Tribunal. Inasmuch as there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by accepting the bond at this distance of time, the Writ Petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to accept Ext.P7 bond offered by the petitioner and to treat the same as in compliance with Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal - on furnishing the bond, the stay granted by the Tribunal shall continue to operate in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Acceptance of bond beyond the time specified by the Tribunal.
2. Direction to accept the bond offered by the petitioner.
3. Expedite the disposal of the appeal pending since 2019.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Acceptance of bond beyond the time specified by the Tribunal
The petitioner had appealed against a penalty order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The first appellate authority rejected the case, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted a stay on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bond within a specified timeframe. Due to the pandemic situation, the petitioner could not meet the deadline but later submitted the bond. Despite the delay, the authority refused to accept the bond as it was beyond the time stipulated by the Tribunal. The court noted that accepting the bond at a later stage did not prejudice the revenue. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to accept the bond offered by the petitioner and treat it as compliant with the Tribunal's order, ensuring the stay granted by the Tribunal continued until the appeal's disposal.

Issue 2: Direction to accept the bond offered by the petitioner
The court emphasized that since there was no harm to the revenue by accepting the bond after the specified time, it was appropriate to direct the authorities to acknowledge the bond. By accepting the bond, the stay granted by the Tribunal in favor of the petitioner would persist until the appeal's finalization. The court's decision aimed to ensure fairness and uphold the petitioner's rights, despite the delay in submitting the bond within the Tribunal's timeframe.

Issue 3: Expedite the disposal of the appeal pending since 2019
Acknowledging the prolonged pendency of the appeal since 2019, the court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of the judgment. This directive was issued to ensure timely resolution and justice for the petitioner. The court's order emphasized the importance of expediting legal proceedings and providing a swift resolution to pending cases, thereby upholding the principles of justice and efficiency in the legal system.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of bond acceptance, fair treatment of the petitioner, and expediting the appeal's disposal, ensuring a balanced approach to resolving the legal matters at hand.