9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1963 (3) TMI 37 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the proviso to section 9 of the Sales Tax Act regarding the requirement of depositing the admitted tax amount with the memorandum of appeal. 2. Validity of the service of notice of the hearing of the assessment case on the applicants. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The High Court was tasked with interpreting the proviso to section 9 of the Sales Tax Act, which mandates that an appeal must be accompanied by proof of payment of the admitted tax amount. The court examined the timeline of events where the assessee failed to deposit the full admitted tax amount with the appeal memorandum within the stipulated 30 days. The court emphasized that the proviso necessitates the simultaneous presentation of the memorandum of appeal and the proof of payment. It was clarified that presenting the proof later does not fulfill the requirement of the proviso. The court rejected the argument for a fictional return of the memorandum of appeal with the proof at a later date, emphasizing that legal fictions cannot circumvent statutory provisions. Issue 2: The judgment did not delve into the second issue regarding the validity of the service of notice of the assessment case hearing on the applicants. The court's focus remained on the interpretation of the proviso to section 9 of the Sales Tax Act and the requirements for a valid appeal. It was concluded that the failure to accompany the appeal memorandum with proof of payment within the specified time rendered the appeal defective and subject to rejection by the Judge (Appeals). The court highlighted the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions in filing appeals and rejected any attempts to introduce legal fictions to remedy procedural shortcomings. The court's decision was to answer the first question in the negative, indicating that the defect regarding the failure to deposit the admitted tax amount with the appeal memorandum was not cured by subsequent actions. The second question did not arise for consideration in the judgment. The court directed the dissemination of the judgment copies to the relevant authorities and awarded costs to the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., from the assessee.
|
