9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 499 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLiability of tax Power to stay proceedings consideration of merits of case and financial hardship of asseessee Held that - During the pendency of appeal, the Tribunal to look into the prima facie merit of the case as well as financial condition of the revisionist - the appellate authority is required to consider the relevant factor like financial hardship and other relevant facts because the condition of deposit will make the purpose of filing of appeal itself nugatory Tribunal order dated 11.06.2013 modified to the extent that disputed tax raised by the Assessing Authority shall remain stayed till disposal of the first appeal - Order dated 11.6.2013 modified to the extent that 90% of the disputed tax shall remain stayed till disposal of the first appeal and the revisionist shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Assessment of tax liability for multiple assessment years under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Analysis: The judgment by the Allahabad High Court pertains to revisions filed by a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of builders and developers, challenging the tax liability imposed by the Assessing Authority. The revisionist had appealed against the order before the Additional Commissioner, who stayed 70% of the disputed tax. Subsequently, the revisionist filed a second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, which dismissed the revision. The revisions were filed on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider relevant facts and financial stringency, crucial for assessing undue hardship. The counsel for the revisionist argued that the Tribunal's decision lacked proper consideration of financial aspects and was arbitrary and illegal. The revisionist relied on various judgments to support the argument that financial hardship must be a key consideration in such cases. The Court observed that the Tribunal should have considered the financial stringency demonstrated in the affidavit and the applicant's bank account. It emphasized that the power of stay should be judicially exercised, and the order should be passed after a proper application of sound principles. The Court referred to previous judgments to highlight the importance of considering the prima facie merit of the case and the financial condition of the revisionist while deciding on waiver cum stay. The Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the Tribunal must assess the prima facie merit of the case and the financial condition of the revisionist to prevent the purpose of the appeal from becoming nugatory due to financial constraints. In the final disposition, the Court modified the Tribunal's order related to specific Trade Tax Revision Numbers. For some revisions, it ordered that the disputed tax would remain stayed till the disposal of the first appeal, subject to the revisionist furnishing security equivalent to the assessed amount. For other revisions, it directed that 90% of the disputed tax would stay, with the revisionist required to deposit the remaining 10% within six weeks and provide security for the balance to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority. The Court also instructed the first appellate authority to expedite the decision on the first appeals within six months from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order. Ultimately, all the revisions were disposed of finally, providing clarity on the tax liability assessment for the respective assessment years under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
|
