TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33352, 33353, 33315, 33317, 33326, 33327 & 33347 of 2019 & W.P.Nos.4303, 4318, 4312, 4316, 4323, 4307, 4325, 4297, 4298, 4319 & 4302 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2022 - WMP.Nos.33766, 33783, 33789, 33797, 33798, 33767, 33770, 33772, 33779, 33780, 33814, 33810, 33813, 33800, 33801, 33803, 33804, 33806, 33807, 33808, 33784 33787 of 2019 WMP.Nos.5108, 5090, 5091, 5097, 5117, 5099, 5100, 5120, 5122, 5111 5114 of 2020 Honourable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioners : Mr.N.Murali For the Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj Additional Government Pleader (for R2 R3) COMMON ORDER This is a batch of twenty two (22) Writ Petitions filed by two petitioners. The years in question are 2011-12 to 2016-17 in the case of Jaishni Packs Pvt. Ltd., and 2012-13 to 2016-17 in the case of Laxmi Packaging. 2.The petitioners have challenged the orders of the first Appellate Authority dated 31.10.2018 in all cases, as well as an order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short STAT/Tribunal ) declining admission of the second Appeals on the ground that they were not maintainable, all dated 21.08.2019. 3.The brief facts as relevant to determine the issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... snani Vs. State of Rajasthan and others [2011 14 SCC 160]. 9.According to the petitioners, the ratio of the aforesaid cases would support their request for grant of waiver of pre-deposit. They would specifically plead that in respect of two assessment years, 2014-15 and 2015-16, the first Appellate Authority, has taken a view in the Central Sales Tax assessments in favour of the petitioners to effect that the classification of the goods, being packing materials, would be liable to be classified in terms of entries 67A and 94/Part B/Schedule-I of the TNVAT Act. In such an event, the VAT assessments cannot take a contrary stand. 10.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would emphasize that the condition under Section 58 is non negotiable. He would also distinguish the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner pointing out two out of three judgments have been rendered in the context of the Indian Stamp Act and not in the context of Revenue Laws. 11.That apart, he would submit that even those cases had not dealt with waiver of pre-deposit and had proceeded on an entirely different aspect of the matter. Thus, according t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: 4.The questions involved in the matters were framed by the High Court as under:- (a) Whether the State is empowered to enact Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act? (b) Whether the condition of 25% pre-deposit for hearing first appeal is onerous, harsh, unreasonable and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? (c) Whether the first appellate authority in its right to hear appeal has inherent powers to grant interim protection against imposition of such a condition for hearing of appeals on merits? 17.The Hon ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on questions (a) (b) to the effect that the condition imposed by statute was not onerous and the vires was thus upheld. 18.In doing so, the Bench tested the provision in the context of an earlier judgment in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi [(1969) 2 SCR 65]. In Mohammed Kunhi's case, the Court was concerned with whether an Appellate Authority had the power to consider and grant stay in cases where the respective enactment did not specifically endow such power upon the Tribunal. 19.The Court concluded that even in a case wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is the sum and substance of the petitioners case. 23. I would however disagree with the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, the aforesaid judgments are distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Both the judgments have been rendered in the context of Section 47A of the Stamp Act, 1899. The Stamp Act provides for an enhancement of the value of an asset where the registering Authority believes that the value was understated in the document. In both the aforesaid cases, the enhancement of the valuation came to be challenged in Writ Petition. 24.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases aforesaid had taken note of a situation where the enhancement of the valuation was itself patently erroneous and arbitrary and has stated that in such cases, where a party was in a position to establish that the enhancement of the valuation by the Sub-Registrar was patently, arbitrary and erroneous, then such an order of enhancement could be challenged by way of Writ Petition. 25.This assumes importance in light of the fact that an appeal to be filed by a person aggrieved by an order of enhancement would have to be accompanied by payment of 50% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
