TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Pre-Deposit Requirement for Tax Appeals, Emphasizes Exhausting Statutory Remedies</h1> The court upheld the validity of the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, requiring a pre-deposit of 12.5% ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.2. Maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Legality of the impugned provisional assessment orders dated August 6, 2003.4. Requirement of pre-deposit for filing appeals under section 19(1) of the Act.5. Attachment of properties under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957:The petitioners challenged the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Act, which mandates the payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax for filing appeals. They argued that this requirement is illegal and sought to have it struck down. However, the court did not find merit in this argument and upheld the validity of the proviso.2. Maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The court considered whether the writ petitions were maintainable given that the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy. It was emphasized that the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a crucial factor in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. The court cited several precedents, including British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Jasjit Singh and Assistant Collector Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., to highlight that Article 226 should not be used to circumvent statutory procedures unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court concluded that the petitioners, having already availed the remedy of appeal, could not pursue parallel proceedings under Article 226.3. Legality of the impugned provisional assessment orders dated August 6, 2003:The petitioners contended that the provisional assessment orders were passed without proper consideration of their objections and were thus violative of principles of natural justice. The court, however, did not delve into the merits of this argument due to the petitioners' failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement for their appeals.4. Requirement of pre-deposit for filing appeals under section 19(1) of the Act:The petitioners argued that the pre-deposit requirement rendered the right of appeal illusionary and onerous. The court rejected this argument, stating that the right to appeal is not diminished by the requirement of pre-deposit, which is a statutory condition. The court emphasized that statutory remedies should be pursued fully before seeking relief under Article 226.5. Attachment of properties under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864:Following the rejection of their appeals, the respondent authorities initiated recovery proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, and attached the properties of the petitioners. The court did not find any fault with these actions, as they were in line with the statutory provisions for recovering due taxes.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners must adhere to the statutory requirement of pre-deposit for filing appeals and cannot seek parallel remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution. The provisional assessment orders and subsequent recovery actions were upheld, and the petitioners' arguments regarding the legality of the second proviso to section 19(1) and the maintainability of the writ petitions were rejected. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking the writ jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
