2019 (9) TMI 787 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority - HELD THAT - Normally this Court considers directing disposal of delay condonation petition and also stay petition where the delay in filing the appeal is about 150 days. In the case on hand, Adv. Hajara draws the attention of Court to the special circumstances which prevented the petitioner from working out the remedy of appeal, firstly within the time granted by Statute, at least within a period of 150 days. On being convinced by the reasons stated by her, prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petitions and stay petitions in Exts.P13 to P16 and P9 to P12 respectively. The appellate authority/second respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P13 to P16 and P9 to P12 applications as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

Summary

Issues: Delay in disposal of appeal petitions and stay petitions under KVAT Act.

In the judgment delivered by Mr. S. V. Bhatti, J., the petitioner filed appeals challenging assessment orders made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act in Exts.P5 to P8. The petitioner also submitted delay condonation petition of 163 days in Exts.P13 to P16 and stay petitions in Exts.P9 to P12, seeking directions for their expeditious consideration and disposal by the appellate authority.

The petitioner argued that the mere filing or pendency of appeal does not automatically grant a stay on recovery actions by the assessing officer. Delays in processing the appeal petitions could result in the recovery of disputed tax amounts, rendering the appeal ineffective. The petitioner emphasized the need for timely consideration of delay condonation and stay petitions to protect the appellant's interests during the appeal process, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Upon examining the appeal records in Exts. P1 to P16, the Court acknowledged the general practice of directing the disposal of delay condonation and stay petitions when the delay exceeds 150 days. The petitioner's counsel, Adv. Hajara, highlighted special circumstances that hindered the timely filing of the appeal within the statutory period or even within 150 days. Satisfied with the reasons presented, the Court found merit in issuing directions to the second respondent to promptly address the delay condonation and stay petitions in Exts.P13 to P16 and P9 to P12, respectively.

In the final decision, the Court ordered the appellate authority/second respondent to consider and dispose of the delay condonation and stay applications within two months from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive measures or recover the disputed amounts determined in the appealed orders for a period of ten weeks from the judgment date, providing temporary relief to the petitioner during the appeal process.