2011 (4) TMI 1256 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court allows revision petition, sets aside order under section 63A, remits matter to Appellate Tribunal for decision. Appeals permissible under section 63.

Citicorp Finance India Limited Versus State of Karnataka

The Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed under section 63A, and remitted the matter back to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ... Whether the appeal preferred by the assessee under section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is not maintainable? Held that:- In view of the amendment to section 63 incorporating a provision to make the order passed under section 63A as appealable under section 63 and the fact that the right of the assessee to challenge the order under section 63A before this court cannot be disputed, in the facts of the case, we are of the view that the justice of the case would be met by remanding the matter back to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under section 63 even against an order passed under section 63A subsequent to August 1, 2008. Revision petition is allowed. Issues:Appeal maintainability under section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against an order passed under section 63A.Detailed Analysis:The assessee, a non-banking finance company engaged in leasing motor vehicles, claimed transitional relief under section 18 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The claim was allowed, granting relief of Rs. 2,55,78,272. Subsequently, the Joint Commissioner initiated revisional proceedings under section 63A, setting aside the transitional relief granted to the assessee. The assessee appealed under section 63 of the Act, challenging the order passed under section 63A, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that no appeal lies under section 63 against an order passed under section 63A before August 1, 2008. The assessee contended that despite the absence of express words authorizing an appeal under section 63A in section 63, a harmonious reading of the provisions allowed for such an appeal. The Revenue argued that without a statutory right, an appeal cannot be claimed. The Court noted that section 63A was introduced after section 63 and made orders under it final subject to sections 63 and 64, clarifying that failure to challenge such orders would render them final. The Court found the amendment to section 63 clarificatory, enabling appeals against orders under section 63A. Therefore, the Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for a decision on the merits.In conclusion, the Court emphasized that the amendment to section 63 allowing appeals against orders under section 63A, coupled with the right to challenge orders before the High Court under article 226, supported the view that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on the appeal. The Court's order allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law. Each party was to bear its own costs, and a related stay application was dismissed as infructuous in light of the petition's disposal.