Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1189 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRequirement of pre-deposit - Whether the revisional authority-Commissioner of Sales Tax is legally justified in sustaining the orders rejecting appeals summarily by the appellate authority-Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax for want of deposit of 10% of the amount of tax in dispute under the OVAT Act and 20% of the amount of tax under the OET Act? - HELD THAT:- In JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [2014 (9) TMI 372 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] this Court delved into the question as to whether the condition precedent for pre-deposit of 20% [reduced to 10% vide OVAT (Amendment) Act, 2017] of tax or interest or both in dispute in addition to payment of admitted tax for entertaining an appeal as provided under Section 77(4) of the OVAT Act read with proviso to Rule 87 of the OVAT Rules is unreasonable, oppressive, violative and ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - for “entertainment of appeal”, appeal under the OVAT Act is required to be accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax in full and ten per centum of the tax or interest or both, in dispute and that appeal under the OET Act is required to be accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax in full and twenty per centum of the tax or interest or both, in dispute. In THE BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [1955 (9) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if there is any hardship, it is for the Parliament to amend the law, but the Court cannot be called upon to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for mitigating a hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. As is said, ‘dura lex sed lex’ which means ‘the law is hard but it is the law’. Even if the statutory provision causes hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense as that is the first principle of interpretation. Since statutory deposits as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs were not made, the appeals were rejected summarily. Summary rejection orders were carried in revision before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha who has upheld the rejection orders of the appellate authority. It appears the petitioner has been bona fide pursuing its matter before different fora. Since the counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of opportunity to make statutory deposit, it is, therefore, pertinent to observe that the appellate authority shall not raise any objection as to limitation in view of the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing its matter diligently - So far as stay of recovery of demand of tax and penalty under the OVAT Act is concerned, in view of Section 77(5) as amended by virtue of the Odisha Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2017, realization of the balance tax and penalty under dispute shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal. The present writ petition stands disposed of.
|