2021 (11) TMI 172 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT - CST, VAT & Sales Tax

Head Note / Extract:
Direction to deposit 40%of deposit - seeking full stay on demand - constitutional validity of the Uttarakhand Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2008 is subjudice before this High Court - applicability of Section 53(8) of Uttarakhand Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2008 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, even when the constitutional validity of the Act has been challenged before this Court, this Court has not granted any stay on the recovery of the assessed amount. Therefore, merely because constitutional validity is under challenge, it will not prevent the Department from assessing and from passing the assessment order. Moreover, it will not prevent the learned Joint Commissioner from directing the revisionist to deposit at least 40% of the demand amount. In fact, the law bestows a discretionary power on the Joint Commissioner to decide as to how much of the demand amount should be stayed by him. Since it is the discretionary power, which has been validly exercised, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner. The learned counsel for the revisionist is equally unjustified in claiming that the learned Tribunal could not have relied on Section 53(8) of the Act - obviously, when the revisionist filed the Second Appeal, Section 53 of the Act would have come into effect. Therefore, even the second contention raised by the learned counsel is unsustainable. Admittedly, the amount to be deposited by the revisionist is around ₹ 50 Lacs. The revisionist possibly cannot claim that it on the brink of liquidation, or that it does not have the said amount within its finances. Therefore, even the third contention being raised by the learned counsel is an attempt to seek misplaced sympathy of this Court - revision dismissed.