2014 (7) TMI 361 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of registration - non-payment of tax - sufficient time for filing the evidence regarding payment of tax not given - Whether the MPCTAB is correct in confirming the order cancelling registration of the appellant on assumption of wrong facts regarding non-payment of balance tax which in fact was already paid by the appellant and whether the order passed by MPCTAB is not perverse to the extent - Held that - before the Tribunal the appellant had filed the relevant documents and had sought time to produce the evidence about deposit of tax, however, the Tribunal declined to interfere in the matter on the ground that before the authorities below inspite of repeated opportunities, the appellant could not produce the documents and could not also produce the evidence for the deposit of tax. - It is not in dispute that the tax was already paid by the appellant but the proof to that effect could not be submitted. As regards the relevant documents the same were also filed but at appellate stage - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board
2. Substantial questions of law raised
3. Dispute over cancellation of registration due to non-payment of tax
4. Tribunal's refusal to consider evidence of tax payment
5. Remittance of the matter to the assessing officer
6. Imposition of cost on the appellant

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board, challenging the cancellation of registration based on alleged non-payment of balance tax. The substantial questions of law raised included the correctness of the Board's decision and the dismissal of the appeal without granting sufficient time for evidence submission.

2. The appellant had submitted relevant documents before the Tribunal and requested time to provide evidence of tax payment. However, the Tribunal refused to intervene, citing the appellant's failure to produce documents and evidence despite opportunities given by the authorities.

3. It was acknowledged that the appellant had indeed paid the tax, although the evidence supporting this claim was not submitted promptly. The relevant documents were filed at the appellate stage, indicating a delay in presenting crucial information.

4. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for complete justice. The matter was remitted to the assessing officer for a fresh decision, considering the documents submitted by the appellant and acknowledging the payment of tax.

5. Despite the favorable decision for the appellant, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 due to the appellant's delay in filing documents and providing proof of tax deposit in a timely manner. The impugned orders were set aside, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in tax matters.