2021 (6) TMI 865 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - lesser sales turnover reported - assessments were shown both under TNVAT Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - period 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 - HELD THAT - The petitioner had filed statutory appeals questioning them before the Hon'ble CESTAT. As on date, the petitioner has not been able to obtain any interim order of stay. Mere pendency of the CESTAT appeals cannot by itself whittle down the effect of the findings set out in the final orders passed by the Central Excise Department. At the same time, question arises as to what would happen if the CESTAT chooses to allow the appeals filed by the petitioner herein. Interest of justice therefore requires that this Court requests the CESTAT, Chennai to dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioner herein within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, the impugned orders shall be kept in abeyance. It is for the petitioner to obtain final order or interim order at the hands of CESTAT in the meanwhile. If the petitioner fails to obtain any interim order within a period of five months or fails to succeed in getting the appeals allowed, the orders impugned in these writ petitions will spring back to life and thereafter it will be enforced. The period during which these writ petitions were pending and the period during which the impugned orders are kept in abeyance will of course be excluded in the matter of computing limitation - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to revision orders based on Central Excise Department findings.
2. Obligation of sales tax authority to conduct independent enquiry.
3. Distinction of case from precedent cited by petitioner.
4. Request for disposal of appeals by CESTAT within a specified period.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged revision orders based on Central Excise Department's findings, arguing that the sales tax authority should have conducted an independent enquiry. Citing a precedent, the petitioner contended that the authority cannot mechanically adopt another department's approach. The court noted the need for the revenue to fulfill its duty properly, emphasizing the requirement for an independent investigation by the sales tax authority.

2. The respondent defended the impugned orders, asserting that they were justified. The court reviewed the contentions and counter-affidavits presented. It distinguished a precedent cited by the petitioner, highlighting that the current case involved final orders from the excise department before the sales tax authority took action. The court upheld the principle that the sales tax authority must independently determine findings and not merely replicate another department's conclusions.

3. The court addressed the petitioner's reliance on a Gujarat High Court decision, emphasizing the distinction in circumstances. It noted that in the Gujarat case, the sales tax department initiated revision proceedings based on a show cause notice from the excise department, which had not concluded its proceedings. In contrast, the respondent in the present case acted after the excise department's final orders. The court clarified that the pendency of appeals at CESTAT did not diminish the impact of the excise department's findings.

4. Considering the circumstances, the court directed the CESTAT to expedite the appeals filed by the petitioner within five months. Pending the appeal's resolution, the impugned orders were to be held in abeyance. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to seek interim relief from CESTAT. If the appeals were unsuccessful, the impugned orders would be enforced. The court excluded the writ petitions' pendency period from limitation calculations and left all contentions open for future challenges.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions with specific directives for the CESTAT's timely resolution of appeals and the enforcement of impugned orders based on the appeal outcomes.