9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 38 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxNon-deposit of disputed tax as court fee due to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund - HELD THAT - It is true that the statute now mandates the amount to be paid to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund as 1% of the disputed tax amount, by virtue of the amendment dated 07.04.2016. This Court has held, through series of judgments, that the amendment is prospective. It will suffice if the petitioner remits 0.5% of the disputed tax to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund and also furnishes a personal bond without sureties before the Assessing Authority undertaking to pay the balance amount due under the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, if the issue is ultimately found against the petitioner. On furnishing the bond as directed above and on payment of 0.5% of the disputed tax to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund (if not already paid) within four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall number the appeal and consider the same on merits, in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal numbering and court fee deposit under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, filed an appeal against an assessment order for the year 2013-2014. The petitioner complained that the appellate authority kept the appeal aside as defective and issued a notice (Ext.P3) stating that 1% of the disputed tax must be deposited as court fee for the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, warning of rejection for default if not paid. The petitioner argued that only 0.5% of the disputed amount needed to be paid based on a relevant notification and a previous judgment (O.P.(Tax) No.2/2017). Upon hearing the arguments, the court acknowledged that the statute now required 1% of the disputed tax to be paid to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund following an amendment dated 07.04.2016. However, the court noted that previous judgments had held the amendment to be prospective. Referring to the judgment in O.P.(Tax) No.2/2017, the court directed the petitioner to remit 0.5% of the disputed tax to the Fund and provide a personal bond without sureties to cover the balance amount if found liable. The court ordered the appellate authority to number the appeal and consider it on merits once the payment and bond were submitted within four weeks. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to comply with the court's instructions regarding the court fee deposit and bond, allowing the appeal to proceed for consideration on merits by the appellate authority in accordance with the law.
|
