TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on VAT Rectification; Emphasizes Compliance</h1> <h3>Varun Dyes And Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat</h3> The High Court upheld the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal's decision to reject the petitioner's rectification applications due to non-compliance with ... Rectification of application - Appeal dismissed for non compliance order - Held that:- Against the petitioner's willingness to deposit sum of ₹ 50 lacs during the appellate proceedings, the Tribunal reduced such requirement to ₹ 24 lacs on the say of the petitioner. The petitioner's advocate had assured the Court that such amount would be deposited within two days from the date of order. Instead of making good such deposit by 29.6.2007 as assured, the petitioner filed affidavit before the Tribunal on 18.2.2008 suggesting that due to death of husband of the Director of the petitioner company and for want of making arrangement of funds, the amount could not be deposited. The Tribunal rejected the application noting that such amount of ₹ 24 lacs which was required to be deposited within two days, was not deposited till the year 2013. When the representative of the petitioner held out a promise before the Tribunal that such sum of ₹ 24 lacs would be deposited within two days, none of the factors sought to be pressed in service for recalling such order existed. Such development took place much later. On such basis, condition could not be rescinded. Tribunal committed no error. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had requested for a remand to enable the petitioner to take benefit of amnesty scheme. While accepting such request, the Tribunal imposed precondition. Such condition was as suggested by the counsel for the petitioner. Amount required to be deposited was less than half of the petitioner had agreed before the first appellate authority. In fact, it was stated that such amount would be deposited within two days. Much later the petitioner requested for deletion of such condition. Even till date such amount is not deposited. - Time extended for making deposit - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to order of Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal rejecting rectification applicationsAnalysis:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal rejecting rectification applications. The petitioner had filed First Appeals against separate assessment orders, which were dismissed due to non-payment of taxes. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred second appeals before the Tribunal. During the proceedings, the petitioner agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs, but the Tribunal required a consolidated sum of Rs. 70.63 lakhs. The Tribunal, considering the petitioner's request to take advantage of an amnesty scheme, directed a deposit of Rs. 24 lakhs towards all four appeals. The Tribunal's order specified that the petitioner should make the payment within two days. However, the petitioner failed to comply and instead filed rectification applications. The Tribunal rejected the applications as the required amount was not deposited even after several years from the order date.The Tribunal imposed a condition on the petitioner based on their request for a remand to benefit from the amnesty scheme. The petitioner's counsel had assured that the amount would be deposited within two days, but it was not fulfilled. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner did not meet the deposit requirement as promised. Despite the petitioner's subsequent request to remove the condition, the amount remained unpaid. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the condition was imposed after the petitioner's own request and assurance of timely payment, which was not honored.As a final opportunity, the High Court granted the petitioner time until a specified date to fulfill the condition imposed by the Tribunal. If the amount is deposited by the given deadline, the original order of the Tribunal would stand. However, if the condition is not met by the deadline, the petitions would be dismissed. The Court provided this limited relaxation while dismissing the petitions, maintaining the importance of adhering to the conditions set by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
