2015 (5) TMI 452 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Tribunal s order - Whether the Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax was justified and right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant Rosa Traders Pvt. Ltd. for failure to deposit the entire amount of 2 lakhs - Held that - appellant has closed and stopped their business activities and the person in charge is an old man more than 85 years of age. The lapse and default on the part of the appellant because of the delay in depositing 2 lakhs is accepted. It is pointed out that the total quantum of additions which were subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Tribunal is 39, 40, 971/-. It is submitted that in case the appeal is not heard and decided on merits the appellant will be burdened with the huge liability which keeping in view the old age and financial position the company may not be able to meet and the person in charge would face penurious situation. Noticing these facts while issuing notice vide order dated 09.09.2014 we had asked the appellant whether they could deposit a further amount. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that they would deposit another amount of 50, 000/- and a challan would be produced. - appellant has produced before us photocopy of the two challans dated 17.09.2014 and 19.09.2014 of 25, 000/- each totalling to 50, 000/- whereby the said amount stands deposited. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and also noticing the advanced age of the person in charge we are inclined to allow the appeal and to answer the question of law in favour of the appellant. - appeal is restored to be decided on merits by the Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal for failure to deposit the entire amount.
2. Consideration of appeal by the High Court based on the deposited amount.
3. Impact of appellant's closure of business activities and the age of the person in charge on the case.

Issue 1:
The High Court considered the justification of the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant for failing to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit this amount as a precondition for hearing and deciding the appeal on merits. The appellant made partial payments over time, but a balance of Rs. 60,000 remained outstanding. The appeal was listed to be dismissed under Section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Act, 1975. However, the appellant subsequently deposited the remaining amount after the appeal was dismissed. A review application was filed but was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Issue 2:
The High Court considered the appeal in light of the appellant's claim that they had closed their business activities and that the person in charge was an elderly individual over 85 years of age. The appellant acknowledged the delay in depositing the full amount and expressed concern about the financial burden they would face if the appeal was not heard on merits. The total quantum of additions challenged in the appeal was Rs. 39,40,971. The appellant offered to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 50,000, which was produced during the hearing. Considering the circumstances, including the advanced age of the person in charge, the High Court allowed the appeal and answered the question of law in favor of the appellant. The appeal was restored to be decided on merits by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, with directions for an expedited hearing.

Issue 3:
The High Court took into account the closure of the appellant's business activities and the age of the person in charge while deciding on the appeal. The appellant's plea regarding their inability to meet a substantial liability due to their financial position and the advanced age of the person in charge was considered. The Court allowed the appeal based on these factors and the additional deposit made by the appellant. The decision aimed to prevent the appellant from facing a significant financial burden that they may not be able to bear, especially considering the age and circumstances of the person in charge.

This comprehensive summary provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and highlighting the key legal considerations and decisions made by the High Court in the case.