10 June 2024


Judgments

High Court of Chhattisgarh

Shivshankar Solvent vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax

MANU/CG/0353/2020

26.05.2020

Sales Tax/VAT

Mandatory pre-deposit is required to be deposited before Tribunal within 30 days for further benefits

Challenge in present appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge disposing off the petition granting 30 day's time to the appellant/petitioner for making mandatory deposit before the Tribunal in Second Appeal Case and further directed that upon depositing the said mandatory deposit, aforesaid appeal would stand restored and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on its merit.

Appellant establishment is registered for the VAT. Suo-Moto proceedings were initiated by Commissioner of Commercial Tax. Appellant / Assessee submitted reply to the notice, Commissioner upon considering reply passed order assessing the liability of tax of Rs.35,84,078 upon Appellant. The order was put to challenge before Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal. This appeal came to be dismissed for non- enclosing the receipt of deposit of 20% of the demand as envisaged under Section 48(4)(ii) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (VAT Act) vide order.

Order of Tribunal was challenged by the Appellant before this Court. Learned Single Judge disposed off the petition by remitting back the case to Tribunal, granting 30 days' time to the Appellant / Petitioner for making mandatory deposit before the Tribunal and further directed the Tribunal for restoring the appeal and deciding it on merits subject to depositing the mandatory deposit of the amount as envisaged under Section 48(4)(ii) of the VAT Act. Appellant, aggrieved by the above order filed this appeal, mainly, raising the ground that Appellant is not in a position to make pre-deposit in terms of Section 48(4)(ii) of VAT Act and learned Single Judge has not considered submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant appearing therein.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that, due to mishap of fire in the Appellant's factory, Appellant has suffered huge loss. Appellant is finding it extremely hard to meet the requirements of provisions of VAT particularly of the Section 48(4)(ii). He further submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also position of appellant, entire amount of pre-deposit i.e. 20% of amount is to be relaxed and the appeal filed before the Tribunal to be considered for hearing on its merit. It is also pointed out that if the appeal filed before the Tribunal is not heard on merit, Appellant will suffer adversely. He also referred the case law pleaded in his appeal.

The Appellant wanted an opportunity to make the default good. The other thing is that, this court while passing orders in tax case has recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that by now somehow they managed to arrange funds to comply the provision of mandatory deposit. In the facts of the case, Appellant will not be permitted to raise the different pleas in different proceedings.

In view of aforementioned discussions, there is no tenable ground calling interference in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, as well as considering that, if time for depositing mandatory deposit in terms of Section 48(4)(ii) of VAT Act is not extended, Appellant will remain unheard, which will be prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. Therefore, it is directed that, 30 days' time granted by learned Single Judge will start from the date of passing of this order. It is made clear that, if the Appellant deposits mandatory deposit before the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from passing of this order, then he will be entitled to get benefit of further directions issued by learned Single Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : Pre-deposit Direction Legality

Share :