2023 (2) TMI 547 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Abatement of appeals instituted under Section 35 of Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005, for want of pre-deposit - requirement to predeposit introduced by amendment by the Goa Value Added Tax (Tenth Amendment) Act, 2017 (with retrospective effect) - HELD THAT - The facts, in this case, are somewhat peculiar because the appeals, as instituted originally, complied with all the conditions prescribed under the principal Act. Even after the Ninth Amendment to the principal Act, the appeals were duly compliant. Only after the Tenth Amendment was a requirement for a deposit of ten per cent of this amount because such a requirement was made applicable even to pending appeals. Considering the peculiar facts, it is opined that the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity of having its appeals heard on merits, particularly now that the Petitioner has fully complied with the requirement of a pre-deposit of ten per cent of the disputed amount. Therefore, even without going into the disputed issue of natural justice failure, we think this is a fit case where an additional opportunity should be granted to the Petitioner now that the Petitioner has already deposited ten per cent of the disputed amount before the concerned authorities. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 04.08.2020 in Appeal Nos. 62/2016 and 63/2016 under Section 35 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders dated 04.08.2020 in Appeal Nos. 62/2016 and 63/2016 made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Appellate Authority under Section 35 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioner had filed these appeals to contest Assessment Orders without the requirement of predepositing undisputed or disputed dues at the time of filing. However, subsequent amendments to the Act mandated the predeposit of the undisputed amount of tax, interest, penalty, and ten percent of the disputed amount to entertain appeals. The initial amendments did not apply to the petitioner's appeals as they were not filed under the relevant section.

Subsequently, further amendments made the predeposit requirement applicable to all appeals under Section 35 of the Act, including pending appeals. The impugned orders declared the petitioner's appeals abated for not complying with the deposit requirement, without granting a hearing. The petitioner later deposited ten percent of the disputed amount, albeit beyond the time limit. The court noted the peculiar circumstances where the appeals were compliant with the Act's conditions initially and even after the first amendment. The court decided to grant an opportunity for the petitioner's appeals to be heard on merits, considering the compliance with the deposit requirement. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for further proceedings before the authorities.

The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner/Appellate Authority, file an authenticated copy of the order, and have the appeals heard on merits. The ruling was made without any order for costs, and all parties were instructed to act upon an authenticated copy of the judgment.