9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1360 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDirection to pay the amount of pre-deposit even though the appellant was not required to pay the same - no reason assigned for imposing condition of deposit - validity of assessment order - HELD THAT - It appears that the assessee is desirous to pursue its First Appeals against the order of the assessment. It is an admitted fact that more than ₹ 20,00,000/- of refund is withheld by the department which was virtually the amount of the assessee. The appellant assessee to make an application before the First Appellate Authority to treat the refund amount lying in his credit as pre- deposit and the First Appellate Authority to pass order to treat the said refund as pre-deposit. Under the circumstances, there is substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the assessee. It is ordered that if the assessee makes an application to revive his First Appeals before the First Appellate Authority, the First Appellate Authority shall revive the First Appeals and hear and decide the First Appeals on merits, treating the amount around ₹ 20,00,000/- of the assessee as pre-deposit. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 regarding pre-deposit requirement. 2. Validity of the Tribunal's order directing the appellant to pay a pre-deposit amount. 3. Consideration of refund amount as a pre-deposit by the First Appellate Authority. Analysis: 1. The Tax Appeals under Section 78 of the GVAT Act were filed by the assessee against the common order of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The substantial questions of law proposed by the assessee revolved around the Tribunal's decision to direct the appellant to pay a pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal's order dated 09.08.2018 was challenged for alleged errors in imposing the pre-deposit condition. 2. The facts leading to the appeals revealed that the appellant, a registered dealer, faced allegations of irregularities during a spot visit by the Commercial Tax Officer. Subsequently, a notice for audit and a show-cause notice were issued regarding a refund obtained through allegedly fake documents. The Assessing Officer raised a demand under the GVAT Act, which was contested by the assessee before the Joint Commissioner and later before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal due to non-payment of the pre-deposit amount. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that a refund amount of over ?20,00,000 was held by the Revenue, exceeding the pre-deposit demanded by the Tribunal. The Court considered this argument and ordered the appellant to apply to the First Appellate Authority to treat the refund as a pre-deposit, allowing the revival of the First Appeals without coercive recovery of the tax demand until final disposal. 4. The Court acknowledged the appellant's intention to pursue the First Appeals and found merit in considering the substantial refund amount as a pre-deposit. Consequently, it directed the First Appellate Authority to treat the refund as such, enabling the revival and further hearing of the First Appeals on their merits. This decision resulted in the disposal of the Tax Appeals and connected civil applications, ensuring no coercive recovery during the pendency of the appeals. By addressing the interpretation of Section 78, the validity of the Tribunal's pre-deposit order, and the consideration of the refund amount as a pre-deposit, the Court provided a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised by the appellant in the Tax Appeals under the GVAT Act.
|
