1995 (8) TMI 293 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Full Bench reconsiders prior decisions in tax appeal cases, emphasizes timely payment of admitted tax

The Full Bench reviewed the correctness of prior decisions in light of Supreme Court precedents and concluded that the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. ... - Issues Involved:1. Correctness of the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Madanraj (1992) 1 MTCR 16 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Jayamurugan Metal Mart (1992) 2 MTCR 320.2. Interpretation of the second proviso to section 31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.3. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in Lalta Prasad Khinni Lal v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax [1972] 29 STC 201.Summary:1. Correctness of Previous Decisions:The Full Bench was convened to assess the correctness of the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Madanraj and State of Tamil Nadu v. Jayamurugan Metal Mart in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lalta Prasad Khinni Lal v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax. The Division Bench had previously referred the matter to a Full Bench due to the non-consideration of the Supreme Court's earlier decision in the aforementioned cases.2. Facts of the Case:In T.C. No. 509 of 1995, the assessing authority fixed the total turnover of the respondent/assessee at Rs. 13,52,590 for the year 1986-87 and levied a tax of Rs. 67,651 and a penalty of Rs. 18,652 u/s 12(3) of the Act. The respondent filed an appeal on March 1, 1989, but paid the admitted tax only on March 30, 1989, resulting in a delay of 28 days. The appellate authority dismissed the petition seeking condonation of delay as it exceeded the 15 days permissible under the first proviso to section 31.3. Tribunal's Decision:The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal and remanded the case back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, holding that there was no delay in filing the appeal and that the payment of admitted tax beyond the period of limitation was inconsequential. The Revenue contested this decision.4. Interpretation of Section 31(1):The Full Bench examined the interpretation of section 31(1) of the Act, which allows filing an appeal within 30 days from the date of service of the order, with a further 15 days for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The second proviso mandates that no appeal shall be entertained unless accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of the admitted tax.5. Supreme Court Precedents:The Full Bench reviewed the Supreme Court's decisions in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner and Lalta Prasad Khinni Lal v. Assistant Commissioner. The Supreme Court had clarified that an appeal is considered filed only when proof of payment of admitted tax is furnished, and if such payment is made beyond the prescribed period, the appeal is barred by limitation.6. Application of Supreme Court Decisions:The Full Bench concluded that the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Madanraj and State of Tamil Nadu v. Jayamurugan Metal Mart were incorrect and contrary to the Supreme Court's rulings. The correct approach is to treat the appeal as filed on the date of payment of admitted tax and to see if there was sufficient cause for excusing the delay under the prescribed period.7. Conclusion:The Full Bench overruled the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Madanraj and State of Tamil Nadu v. Jayamurugan Metal Mart. It held that the payment of admitted tax must be made within the time allowed for filing the appeal or within the extended period for condonation of delay. Consequently, the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejecting the applications to condone the delay and dismissing the appeals were upheld.8. Specific Cases:In T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992, the Full Bench found that the payments were made within the time allowed after a revised order corrected an assessment mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal's order of remand was confirmed for fresh consideration on merits.Final Orders:All petitions except T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992 were allowed, restoring the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992 were dismissed. No order as to costs.