2018 (3) TMI 1413 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of appeal for non-compliance - default pointed out by the Additional Commissioner in the appeal was that the entire amount assessed was not deposited and the appeal also has been filed at a belated stage after about 5 months delay - Held that - this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the Petitioner is granted one more opportunity to appear before the Additional Commissioner and satisfy the Additional Commissioner in appeal which is pending before the Additional Commissioner pertaining to Annexure P-1, subject to the Petitioner being penalized by paying a cost of ₹ 10,000/- to be deposited in the office of the Commercial Tax Department - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Commercial Tax Act - Non-compliance with mandatory provisions - Delay in filing appeal - Default in depositing assessed amount - Closure of petitioner-company - Opportunity for petitioner to cure defaults - Imposition of penalty cost.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order made by the Assistant Commissioner-II, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 9(2) read with Section 61(4) Rule 78(1) of the Commercial Tax Act, pointing out non-compliance with mandatory provisions and delay in filing the appeal, along with default in depositing the assessed amount. The petitioner argued that due to the closure of the company and its placement under BIFR, they were unaware of the rejection of the appeal. The petitioner sought an opportunity to cure the defaults and have the appeal heard on merits, claiming the assessment was improper and lacked substantive proof.

The Deputy Advocate General for the respondents contended that due to the petitioner's failure to meet the mandatory requirements for filing the appeal, the Additional Commissioner had no choice but to dismiss it. However, if the appeal were to be remitted, the petitioner should bear a heavy cost. Considering the circumstances, including the closure of the petitioner-company and the officials being located in Kolkata, the Court decided to grant the petitioner another chance to appear before the Additional Commissioner and rectify the defaults. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay a penalty cost of ?10,000 to the Commercial Tax Department and appear before the Additional Commissioner within 30 days. It was emphasized that the petitioner must cooperate fully for a swift resolution without unnecessary delays, concluding the writ petition with these directions.