Court Upholds Pre-Deposit Order, Imposes Costs

The court upheld the tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of specified amounts and dismissed the petitions, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 5000/- per petition. The court emphasized the petitioner's non-cooperation and malafide intentions, leading to denial of relief under Article 226.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-pressing of Draft Amendment in Special Civil Application.
2. Common questions of law and facts in both petitions.
3. Quashing and setting aside the impugned common order by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal.
4. Search operation and seizure of documents.
5. Issuance and non-compliance of show cause notice.
6. Ex-parte assessment order and demand of tax, interest, and penalty.
7. Appeals before the first appellate authority and non-compliance with pre-deposit orders.
8. Appeals before the tribunal and the tribunal's order for pre-deposit.
9. Financial hardship and supply of documents.
10. Conduct of the petitioner and discretionary relief under Article 226.
11. Criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-pressing of Draft Amendment:
The learned advocate for the petitioner did not press the Draft Amendment submitted in Special Civil Application No.16901 of 2014.

2. Common Questions of Law and Facts:
Both petitions involved common questions of law and facts, arising from the same dealer and the impugned common order by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. Therefore, both petitions were heard, decided, and disposed of by a common order.

3. Quashing and Setting Aside the Tribunal's Order:
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the impugned common order dated 7/11/2014 by the tribunal, which directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 23,51,220/- and Rs. 49,121/- as pre-deposit as directed by the first appellate authority.

4. Search Operation and Seizure of Documents:
A search operation was conducted at the petitioner's premises from 24/1/2012 to 1/2/2012, during which certain files and documents were seized. The petitioner's statement was recorded during the search.

5. Issuance and Non-compliance of Show Cause Notice:
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4/7/2012, calling for certain documents, which the petitioner failed to produce. Consequently, an ex-parte assessment order dated 24/6/2013 was passed for the financial year 2008-2009, demanding tax, interest, and penalty under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.

6. Ex-parte Assessment Order and Demand of Tax, Interest, and Penalty:
The ex-parte assessment order demanded Rs. 94,04,878/- under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and Rs. 1,96,484/- under the Central Sales Tax Act for the financial year 2008-2009.

7. Appeals Before the First Appellate Authority and Non-compliance with Pre-deposit Orders:
The petitioner appealed before the first appellate authority, which gave ample opportunities to produce relevant documents. Despite numerous adjournments, the petitioner failed to comply, leading to an order on 17/4/2014 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 23,51,220/- and Rs. 49,121/- as pre-deposit. The petitioner did not comply, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals on 5/6/2014.

8. Appeals Before the Tribunal and the Tribunal's Order for Pre-deposit:
The petitioner appealed to the tribunal, which upheld the first appellate authority's pre-deposit order on 7/11/2014. The tribunal directed compliance by 24/11/2014, failing which the appeals would be dismissed. Instead of complying, the petitioner challenged the tribunal's order on 20/11/2014.

9. Financial Hardship and Supply of Documents:
The petitioner argued that the tribunal erred in directing pre-deposit without considering the detailed reply dated 15/4/2014 and the financial hardship. The petitioner also contended that the necessary documents for assessment were seized, hindering proper defense. The tribunal and first appellate authority were deemed to have erred in not appreciating these facts.

10. Conduct of the Petitioner and Discretionary Relief under Article 226:
The court noted that the petitioner raised disputes with malafide intentions regarding the number of files seized and non-supply of documents. The petitioner failed to avail opportunities to produce documents, showing a pattern of non-cooperation. The court found the petitioner's conduct dis-entitled them to discretionary relief under Article 226.

11. Criminal Proceedings Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner faced criminal proceedings under section 75(1) of the Sales Tax Act and section 85(1)(J) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, with a pending criminal case.

Conclusion:
The court found no error in the tribunal's order directing pre-deposit and dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs of Rs. 5000/- per petition, to be deposited within eight weeks. The court emphasized the petitioner's non-cooperation and malafide intentions, denying relief under Article 226.

---