2017 (3) TMI 534 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - delay in filing appeal - Held that - the appeals have been filed within six weeks as has been directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Once the appeals have been entertained now the only limitation left is three month outer time limit as given in the order dated 18.12.2015, within which the appeals shall be disposed of by the appellate authority. That is the reason why the appellate authority, as informed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has fixed the date of hearing on 20.02.2017. Therefore, within the three months time stipulated in the said order of the Division Bench, the appeals would be expeditiously considered and decided. In view of the time stipulation, it has to be scrupulously followed by the petitioner as well the appellate authority are concerned - petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order.
2. Requirement of pre-deposit for filing an appeal.
3. Compliance with the directives of the Division Bench and Supreme Court.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the assessing officer.
5. Interim stay of the demand.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order claiming it lacked application of mind and exhibited mala fide intentions by the Assessing Officer. The Division Bench acknowledged these grievances but emphasized the necessity of exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal before approaching the court.

2. Requirement of Pre-deposit for Filing an Appeal:
The Division Bench mandated a 25% pre-deposit of the tax demand for the appeal to be entertained. The petitioner contested this requirement in the Supreme Court, which allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the pre-deposit provisions and directed the petitioner to approach the statutory authority under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

3. Compliance with the Directives of the Division Bench and Supreme Court:
The Division Bench directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks along with the 25% pre-deposit. The Supreme Court extended this timeline, allowing the petitioner six weeks to file the appeal. The petitioner complied by filing the appeal and making the pre-deposit within the extended period. The appellate authority scheduled the hearing, indicating compliance with the directives.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Assessing Officer:
The impugned order by the assessing authority claimed the petitioner failed to comply with the Division Bench's directive within the stipulated four weeks, thus initiating recovery proceedings. However, this order was challenged as it contradicted the Supreme Court's extension and the subsequent compliance by the petitioner.

5. Interim Stay of the Demand:
The Division Bench had granted an interim stay on the demand till the disposal of the appeals. The Supreme Court's order implied the continuation of this stay, provided the petitioner filed the appeal within the extended period. The assessing authority's impugned order was found to be in conflict with this stay and the extended timeline granted by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing that the directives of the Division Bench and the Supreme Court should be followed. The petitioner was granted the benefit of the interim stay till the disposal of the appeals by the appellate authority. The court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the appellate authority to ensure the appeals are decided within the stipulated three months.

Final Order:
The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the appellate authority, and the appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeals on merits within the specified timeframe. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.