9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 598 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of appeal - Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 - fulfillment of condition of pre-deposit - correctness of the orders of assessment and rejection of applications for correction of error and further claiming exemption under Notification No.35 dated 23.10.1981 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has already made the statutory compliance in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act by making payment of pre-deposit on 07.04.2018. The said predeposit has been made by the petitioner just on the next day after the two weeks time extended by this Court in review petition expired on 06.04.2018. Thus, there was delay of only one day in making the necessary pre-deposit. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay on the part of the petitioner was intentional or for any ulterior purpose. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration, there are no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the appeal is heard on merits - the delay of one day in making pre-deposit is condoned and thus, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Board is set aside. The Appellate Board is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. 2. Interpretation of the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act. 3. Consideration of delay in making the necessary pre-deposit and its impact on the appeal process. 4. Comparison with a Supreme Court decision on a similar issue for guidance. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order of the M.P. Commercial Tax Appeal Board dismissing their appeal under Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement of twenty percent of the total balance amount due from the dealer after the first appeal. The petitioner had deposited the required amount after a series of legal proceedings. 2. The statutory requirement of pre-deposit under sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act mandates the admission of a second appeal only upon the fulfillment of the condition of pre-deposit. The petitioner argued that the required amount was deposited, albeit with a delay of one day. The Appellate Board had dismissed the appeal citing lack of jurisdiction to grant relaxation for compliance with the High Court's order. 3. The High Court considered the delay of one day in making the necessary pre-deposit and found it to be unintentional, with no evidence of intentional delay or ulterior motives. The Court noted that no prejudice would be caused to any party if the appeal was heard on its merits, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their argument that the delay in pre-deposit should not hinder the appeal process, especially when the delay is minimal and unintentional. The Court, after considering the arguments of both parties, decided to condone the one-day delay in pre-deposit and set aside the order of the Appellate Board. The Appellate Board was directed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law, ultimately disposing of the present petition.
|
