9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 121 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of second appeals - non-compliance with condition with the pre-deposit - Section 58 of the TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Unambiguously, the statutory condition requires deposit of the entirety of the disputed tax as ordered by the first Appellate Authority. The provision was also challenged, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners, in the case of K.M.Corporation 2007 (4) TMI 641 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and has been upheld. In the case of Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (9) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with an appeal filed as against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the context of Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. That provision stated that no appeal shall be entertained unless such appeal was accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of 25% of the additional demand created, penalty and interest, if any. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenging orders of first Appellate Authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding maintainability of appeals due to non-compliance with statutory pre-condition of remittance of admitted tax. Analysis: The petitioners filed twenty-two Writ Petitions challenging orders of the first Appellate Authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT/Tribunal) for the years 2011-12 to 2016-17. The petitioners' appeals were rejected for not complying with the statutory pre-condition of remitting admitted tax. The petitioners sought waiver of the amount, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the power to waive the pre-condition. They relied on Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, which mandates remittance of 100% of tax for maintaining an appeal. The petitioners contended that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court could consider granting a waiver, citing relevant case law. The respondents emphasized the non-negotiable nature of the statutory condition under Section 58 and distinguished judgments cited by the petitioners, stating they were not applicable to revenue laws. The Court analyzed Section 58 of the Act, which requires deposit of the disputed tax as ordered by the first Appellate Authority. The Court referred to a Supreme Court case regarding a similar provision in the Punjab Value Added Tax Act and upheld the statutory condition. The Court discussed the power of the Appellate Tribunal to grant waivers and cited a case where the Supreme Court clarified that statutory limitations cannot be overridden. The petitioners relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding hardship cases, but the Court found them inapplicable as they were related to the Stamp Act and required proof of extreme hardship and patent error in the order. Without evidence of extreme hardship or patent error, the Court rejected the challenge in the Writ Petitions but granted the petitioners six weeks to make the statutory pre-deposit for their appeals to be heard on merits. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions with liberty for the petitioners to re-present the papers within six weeks, accompanied by proof of payment of the disputed tax. The appeals would then be taken on file without reference to limitation but ensuring compliance with the condition of pre-deposit, to be heard on merits and in accordance with the law.
|
