9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 422 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxStay of demand / Waiver of pre-deposit - Revision of assessment order - Direction to petitioner to pay further 25% of the disputed tax in addition to the amount already paid by the petitioner at the time of filing the appeal - HELD THAT - At the time of filing the appeal itself, the petitioner has paid 25% of the disputed tax. By way of this impugned order, the first respondent insisted the petitioner to pay further 25% of the disputed tax. The appeal was filed in the year 2019 and it is yet to be disposed for want of written submission from the third respondent. The impugned order of the first respondent is set aside, with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
Issues involved: Challenge to order directing payment of disputed tax and penalty, delay in disposal of appeal, legality of further payment demanded by appellate authority.
Challenge to order directing payment of disputed tax and penalty: The petitioner, engaged in works contract service, challenged a revision of assessment order and filed an appeal in TNVAT A.P.No.57/2019, paying 25% of the disputed tax at the time of filing. The first respondent directed the petitioner to pay an additional 25% of the disputed tax and furnish a bank guarantee for the balance tax and penalty. The petitioner contended that the first appellate authority's insistence on further payment was illegal as the appeal had not been disposed of since 2019. Delay in disposal of appeal: The petitioner's appeal filed in 2019 had not been disposed of by the first appellate authority, despite the petitioner paying the mandated amount at the time of filing. The petitioner argued that the delay in disposing of the appeal was unreasonable. Legality of further payment demanded by appellate authority: The Special Government Pleader argued that the petitioner owed a total of Rs. 9,29,385 (Tax Rs. 5,57,631 with penalty Rs. 3,71,754) from 2017 based on an inspection by Commercial Taxes Department officials. The first appellate authority, in considering factors like prima facie case and public interest, had ordered the petitioner to make further payment. It was contended that there was no justification to interfere with the first respondent's order. Judgement: The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the first respondent directing payment of additional tax and penalty. The first respondent was directed to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of the order, and no coercive steps for recovery were to be taken against the petitioner during this period. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for timely disposal of the appeal.
|
