2022 (7) TMI 518 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of revision petition - time limitation - appellant did not appear before the revisional authority inspite of the matter being adjourned on several occasions - HELD THAT - The appellant did not diligently prosecute with the matter and did not cooperate with the revisional authority to dispose of the matter though the revision petition was filed in the year 2018. Furthermore, the revisional authority in its order states that the revision is barred by limitation and as there is delay of about 45 days in filing the revision petition. When the appellant went before the learned writ court, conduct of the appellant was taken note of and the court found that the appellant was not vigilant especially when they are big company having transactions of almost 20 crores in a year. Appellant being advised by a team of professionals cannot be granted any indulgence and, accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Such conduct of the appellant needs to be deprecated in the sense that the appellant though filed the revision petition, did not contest the matter and did not diligently prosecute with the matter. The correct amount of tax is to be determined and the appellant should be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies available under the Act. Yet we note the conduct of the appellant in not diligently prosecuting with the matter which was led to the order passed by the revisional authority which was impugned in the writ petition - a delicate balance needs to be made between the parties bearing in mind the interest of revenue as well as interest of the assessee. The writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority subject to the condition that the appellant pays 50 percent of the net tax payable under the C.S.T. Act i.e. 50% of Rs. 2251158.00. However, the appellant is granted 15 days time from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order to effect such payment which shall be treated as a deposit upon production of the receipt of the same - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition dismissed by revisional authority for non-appearance of appellant and delay in filing.
2. Appellant's conduct in diligently prosecuting the matter questioned.
3. Disagreement between learned writ court and High Court on relief to be granted.
4. Appellant's argument on limitation not considered by High Court.
5. Concerns about revenue interest due to prolonged litigation and non-cooperation.
6. Determination of correct tax amount and statutory remedies for appellant.
7. Balancing interests of revenue and appellant in the judgment.

Analysis:
1. The High Court dealt with an intra court appeal against the order of the revisional authority dismissing the revision petition due to the appellant's non-appearance and delay in filing. The appellant's lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter was highlighted, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

2. The Court agreed with the learned writ court on criticizing the appellant's conduct, emphasizing the need to contest and diligently prosecute the matter. The appellant's failure to contest despite filing the revision petition was noted and condemned.

3. While the High Court concurred with the assessment of the appellant's conduct, it differed on the relief to be granted. The Court expressed concerns about the interest of revenue being affected by the appellant's actions, particularly the prolonged litigation and non-cooperation.

4. The appellant's argument regarding the limitation not being barred was not entertained by the High Court, as it should have been raised before the revisional authority. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing legal issues at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

5. The judgment highlighted the significant delay in enforcing a tax demand from 2016 due to the appellant's actions, leading to a prolonged legal battle. The Court acknowledged that tax collection must be in accordance with the law and emphasized the need for a balance between revenue interests and the appellant's rights.

6. In determining the correct tax amount, the High Court directed the appellant to pay 50% of the net tax payable under the C.S.T. Act within a specified time frame. The appellant was granted the opportunity to pursue statutory remedies, with a warning against seeking further adjournments.

7. The judgment aimed to strike a delicate balance between the interests of revenue and the appellant, ensuring that justice was served. The Court set conditions for the appellant's compliance and emphasized that the amount to be paid would be treated as a deposit subject to the revisional authority's orders.