2019 (5) TMI 649 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Compliance with the Pre-deposit - appellant is incurring huge losses as is evident from the Balance Sheets and is not in a position to deposit the amount - reversal of input tax credit - retention of bye products by the Rice Millers - Punjab VAT Rules. HELD THAT - The appellant was required to pre-deposit 25% amount of the additional demand of the tax as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal, which was reasonable and justified - No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the findings recorded by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. No question of law arises in this appeal - appeal dismissed.

Issues:
Delay in refiling the appeal, justification of directing appellant to deposit 25% of tax, reversing Input Tax Credit on purchase tax, reversing Input Tax Credit on retention of bye products, dismissal of appeal for noncompliance of Section 62(5) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The High Court condoned a 3-day delay in refiling the appeal. The appellant, a Corporation, filed the appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, for the assessment year 2008-09. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the justification of directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the tax despite incurring significant losses, reversing Input Tax Credit on purchase tax, and reversing Input Tax Credit on retention of bye products.

2. Justification of Directing Appellant to Deposit 25% of Tax:
The appellant procured paddy from farmers and provided it to rice millers for milling. The agreement stipulated that 67% of the shelled rice was to be supplied back to the appellant, while the rice millers retained bye products like rice husk and rice bran. The Assessing Authority raised a demand on account of reversal of Input Tax Credit accrued on purchase tax for the bye products shelled out of the paddy during milling. The first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 62(5) of the Act, directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the additional tax demand. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal for non-deposit of the required amount, leading to the present appeal.

3. Reversing Input Tax Credit on Purchase Tax and Retention of Bye Products:
The Assessing Authority framed an assessment order raising a substantial demand along with interest and penalty. The appellant's appeal against this order was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal due to non-fulfillment of the pre-deposit condition under Section 62(5) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the deposit of 25% of the tax was a prerequisite for entertaining the appeal, and the failure to comply led to the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the pre-deposit requirement was reasonable and justified.

4. Dismissal of Appeal for Noncompliance of Section 62(5) of the Act:
The Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to deposit the 25% amount of the additional tax demand as directed. The High Court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the Tribunal was unjustified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The Court concluded that no illegality or perversity was found in the Tribunal's decision, and no question of law arose in the appeal, leading to its dismissal.

5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
An application was filed for condonation of 288 days' delay in filing the appeal. However, since the appeal was dismissed on merits, no further orders were required on the application for condonation of delay, and it was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →