2014 (9) TMI 775 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Recovery of the outstanding tax dues - Issuance of endorsement - Dismissal of appeal being defective - Held that - petitioner has not taken care to ensure that the memorandum of appeals filed by it was in accordance with the prescribed format and rules. However, the appeals were rejected only on the ground of defective filing and not on merits. In the interest of justice, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the petitioner to rectify the defects in the memorandum of appeals, so that the appeals could be heard on merits. Hence, Annexure-J is quashed. Matter remnaded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging rejection of appeals due to delay in filing and defects in memorandum of appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the rejection of appeals by the second respondent, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), due to delays in filing and defects in the memorandum of appeals. The petitioner, aggrieved by the re-assessment order under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, filed appeals beyond the prescribed period of limitation without seeking condonation of delay. Subsequently, notice under Rule 149 of the KVAT Rules was issued to rectify defects, which the petitioner failed to address. The appeals were rejected on 26.3.2014, followed by an endorsement for recovery of tax dues on 19.4.2014, leading to the filing of writ petitions.

The petitioner argued that the prescribed procedure under Rule 149 was not followed, emphasizing willingness to rectify all defects in the appeals. On the other hand, the Addl. Government Advocate accused the petitioner of delaying tax recovery by resorting to writ petitions instead of complying with filing rules. The court noted that the appeals were rejected due to defects, not on merits, and highlighted the petitioner's statutory right to appeal under Section 62 of the Act if aggrieved by the original order.

In the interest of justice, the court quashed the rejection order, allowing the petitioner to file applications for condonation of delay and rectify any defects in the memorandum of appeals by appearing before the second respondent on a specified date. Failure to comply would empower the second respondent to take further action. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements while ensuring opportunities for rectification to facilitate a fair hearing on the merits.

Overall, the judgment focused on balancing procedural compliance with substantive justice, providing a pathway for the petitioner to address filing deficiencies and have their appeals considered on merits, emphasizing the statutory rights and responsibilities under the relevant tax legislation.