2014 (9) TMI 914 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Pre deposit ordered so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of appeals - Held that - So as to the challenge as to the correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority it is seen that the orders have been passed by the concerned respondents after considering the case involved and on the basis of the available materials. Such orders prima facie appear to have been passed with proper application of mind which cannot be intercepted by this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said circumstances interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. - However considering the fact that time stipulated to satisfy the condition imposed vide Exts. P5 and P5(a) orders is already over the petitioner is granted further time of two weeks to comply with the requirement - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Condition imposed by appellate authority for interim stay during pendency of appeals.
2. Finalization of assessment and imposition of penalty based on alleged non-disclosure.
3. Allegations of mischief behind disputed invoice and lack of proper enquiry.
4. Relevance of evidence produced by petitioner and timeline of events.
5. Challenge to the correctness and sustainability of conditions imposed by appellate authority.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the condition imposed by the appellate authority for availing the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeals. The orders directed the petitioner to satisfy a specific percentage of the assessment and penalty amounts. The petitioner contended that the conditions were onerous and without regard to the actual facts and figures. The court heard arguments from both parties at length.

2. The petitioner argued that the assessment and penalty were finalized based on alleged non-disclosure, claiming that the disputed invoice was prepared by someone else misusing the petitioner's details. Despite the petitioner's efforts to highlight the issue and file complaints, proper inquiries were not conducted by the authorities. The petitioner raised concerns about the imposition of conditions for interim stay without considering these aspects.

3. The petitioner alleged mischief behind the disputed invoice and pointed out the lack of thorough investigation by the authorities despite submissions and complaints made by the petitioner. The petitioner's representation and complaints to relevant authorities did not yield satisfactory outcomes, leading to doubts about the fairness of the assessment and penalty imposition.

4. The government pleader countered the petitioner's arguments by questioning the relevance of the evidence produced and the timeline of events. The pleader highlighted discrepancies in dates and suggested that the petitioner could have taken alternative legal actions if genuinely aggrieved by the inaction of authorities or police.

5. The court, after considering the arguments and materials presented, found that the orders passed by the appellate authority were based on available evidence and appeared to be made with proper application of mind. The court declined to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted an extension of two weeks to comply with the conditions imposed. The petitioner was instructed to submit a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the second respondent for further proceedings.

← Previous Next →