9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1180 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxConstitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 84 of the VAT Act - requirement of pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed tax to entertain an appeal - HELD THAT - As the petitioner has already preferred an appeal and deposited Rs.68, 14, 980/- towards the disputed tax respondent authorities being respondent nos.2 and 3 are requested to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and to dispose of the same within eight weeks from date of this order. Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Constitutional Validity of the Second Proviso to Section 84 of the VAT Act The legal framework in question pertains to the VAT Act, specifically the second proviso to Section 84, which requires a 15% pre-deposit of the disputed tax for an appeal to be entertained. The Court previously upheld the constitutional validity of this provision in another case, M/s. Vatech Wabag Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Midnapur Charge & Ors. In the current case, the Court reaffirmed this position, indicating that the requirement does not violate constitutional principles. The Court reasoned that such provisions are designed to ensure that only serious appeals are filed and to prevent frivolous litigation. 2. Procedural Fairness and Rights of the Petitioner The Court considered whether the petitioner was afforded procedural fairness, especially given the previous order that allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks without facing objections on the ground of limitation. The Court noted that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to comply with the legal provisions for filing an appeal, which included the pre-deposit requirement. The Court found that this opportunity was consistent with procedural fairness, as it allowed the petitioner to rectify the initial non-compliance with the statutory requirement. 3. Impact of Counsel's Failure to Communicate the High Court's Order The Court examined the implications of the petitioner's previous counsel failing to inform the petitioner about the High Court's order dated 2nd July, 2018. This failure resulted in the petitioner being unaware that the writ petition had been disposed of, and that a further opportunity to file an appeal had been granted. The Court acknowledged this lapse but focused on the fact that the petitioner eventually became aware of the situation, complied with the pre-deposit requirement, and filed the appeal. The Court's primary concern was whether the petitioner had now fulfilled the conditions necessary to proceed with the appeal. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court made several significant determinations:
The Court concluded by disposing of the writ petition with directions for the respondent authorities to act on the appeal expeditiously. The judgment reflects a balance between upholding statutory requirements and ensuring procedural fairness for the petitioner. No order as to costs was made, and all parties were instructed to act on the server copy of the order.
|
