2019 (10) TMI 23 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Recovery of Sales Tax Dues - restraint on prohibitory order - Amnesty Scheme - HELD THAT - It is deemed appropriate to now relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of pursuing the appeal before the 2nd respondent-appellate authority. Taking note of the recovery already effected by the respondents, it is deemed appropriate to condone the delay of 98 days occurred in filing the Ext. P3 series of appeal before the 2nd respondent and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P3 series of appeals within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ext. P2 series of assessment orders
2. Ext. P3 series of appeals, Ext. P4 series of delay condonation applications, and Ext. P5 series of stay petitions
3. Ext. P6 series of Revenue Recovery Notices
4. Ext. P8 prohibitory order
5. Ext. P7 Amnesty Scheme

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, challenged Ext. P2 series of assessment orders by filing Ext. P3 series of appeals, Ext. P4 series of delay condonation applications, and Ext. P5 series of stay petitions before the 2nd respondent appellate authority. While Ext. P6 series of Revenue Recovery Notices were issued, a prohibitory order, Ext. P8, directed the Corporation Bank to allow recovery from the petitioner's account. The court noted that the amounts had been credited to the Treasury account, and the petitioner aimed to settle the issue under Ext. P7 Amnesty Scheme.

2. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, the Standing Counsel for Corporation Bank, and the Government Pleader. Considering the circumstances and recovery under Ext. P8, the court decided to relegate the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The court condoned the 98-day delay in filing the appeals, directing the 2nd respondent to decide on Ext. P3 series of appeals within three weeks. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner as the due amount had been recovered. The petitioner was allowed to operate the Corporation Bank account during the appeal, and Ext. P8 order would not hinder this operation.