9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 277 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - non-compliance with the pre-deposit - Section 62 (5) of the Punjab VAT Act - it is prayed that the mandamus be issued directing the First Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner and decide the same on merits without insisting for pre-deposit of 25% of the additional demand - HELD THAT - It is not found that the present case to be of such extreme hardship, where this Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere and waive the mandatory requirement of Section 62 (5) of the Punjab VAT Act. The mandatory provisions under Section 62 (5) of the Punjab VAT Act need to be complied with, especially in the light of the fact that the vires of the said provisions have been upheld by the Supreme Court in M/S TECNIMONT PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TECNIMONT ICB PRIVATE LIMITED) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB OTHERS 2019 (9) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that High Court rightly held Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act to be legal and valid and the condition of 25% of pre-deposit not to be onerous, harsh, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having not complied with the mandatory requirement of the statute, cannot assert and challenge the order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the First Appellate Authority and the order passed by the Punjab VAT Tribunal as not sustainable - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of assessment order under Punjab VAT Act, 2005 2. Challenge against orders of First Appellate Authority and Punjab VAT Tribunal 3. Request for waiver of pre-deposit requirement under Section 62(5) of Punjab VAT Act 4. Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere in cases of extreme hardship Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of assessment order under Punjab VAT Act, 2005 The petitioner, a corporation, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order for the year 2013-14, claiming it to be violative of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioner also challenged orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and Punjab VAT Tribunal. The First Appellate Authority had mandated a pre-deposit of 25% of the total tax amount before entertaining the appeal, as per Section 62(5) of the Act. The petitioner contended that due to financial losses, it was unable to comply with this requirement. Issue 2: Challenge against orders of First Appellate Authority and Punjab VAT Tribunal The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority and Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to waive the 25% pre-deposit requirement, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the High Court noted that the present case did not present extreme hardship warranting the Court's interference to waive the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The Court emphasized the need to comply with statutory provisions, especially since the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of Section 62(5) of the Punjab VAT Act in a previous case. Issue 3: Request for waiver of pre-deposit requirement under Section 62(5) of Punjab VAT Act The petitioner's plea for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement was based on the assertion of financial hardship. The Court, however, held that the circumstances did not amount to extreme hardship justifying the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to waive the pre-deposit requirement. Issue 4: Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere in cases of extreme hardship The High Court concluded that since the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, it could not challenge the orders of the First Appellate Authority and Punjab VAT Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. In summary, the High Court upheld the importance of complying with statutory requirements, particularly the pre-deposit provision under Section 62(5) of the Punjab VAT Act, and dismissed the petitioner's writ petition due to the lack of extreme hardship warranting a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement.
|
