Parth Prateem Sahu JUDGMENT
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. Heard on IA-1 of 2020, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. Instant appeal is filed after delay of 64 days. Though we are not satisfied with the reasons stated in the application, but looking to the larger interest of justice, delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is being heard.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.10.2019 passed in WPT-132 of 2019, wherein learned Single Judge disposed off the petition granting 30 day's time to the appellant/petitioner-Company for making mandatory deposit before the Tribunal in Second Appeal Case No. A/229/45/2018/Prantiya 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.
3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that appellant establishment is registered for the VAT with state having TIN number 22021701545. Suo-Moto proceedings were initiated by Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur under Section 49 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax (VAT). F-form issued by the dealers mentioned in schedule were unregistered, which is liable to be rejected. Notices were issued proposing tax to be levied @ 4% on Rs. 8,96,01,955/-. Appellant/Assessee submitted reply to the notice, Commissioner upon considering reply passed order dated 23.02.2017 assessing the liability of tax of Rs. 35,84,078/- upon appellant.
4. The order dated 22.02.2017 was put to challenge before Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal in appeal case No. A/229/45/2018. 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 VAT Act vide order dated 05.03.2019.
5. Order of Tribunal was challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing a Tax Case bearing No. TAXC - 68 of 2019, which was withdrawn by the appellant as tax case filed in its form was not maintainable. After withdrawing of Tax Case-68 of 2019, appellant filed WPT- 132 of 2019 which came up for hearing before learned Single Judge on 23.10.2019. After considering the grounds raised in tax case as well as in the writ petition, 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.
6. 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. Appellant further placed reliance in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. State of Punjab and others reported on MANU/PH/4262/2015 : 2016 (90) VST 66 and another case of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of M/s. UV Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and others in support of its pleadings.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to mishap of fire in the appellant's factory, appellant has suffered huge loss and even loss of business. 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 po........