2015 (1) TMI 1402 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Petitioner to Deposit 10% Before Appeal | Waiver Decision Within a Month

The court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed amount before the Appellate Authority within 10 days. The Appellate Authority was ... Levy of Value Added Tax and Entry Tax - case of petitioner is that this writ petition has been filed directly without taking recourse to the remedy available u/s 46(5) of M.P. VAT Act and by contending MP VAT Act is highly discriminatory and ultra vires to the constitution - Held that:- During the course of hearing it now transpires that after filing of the petition an appeal has been filed before the competent authority under Section 46(5) of MP VAT Act along with application for waiver of pre deposit amount. Once the appeal is pending before the competent authority and question of waiver and stay of recovery is subjudice before the competent Appellate Authority it is not appropriate for us to interfere into the matter. On the appellant's depositing 10% of the amount as proposed by the impugned order within a period of 10 days from today before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall take up the appeal for hearing. Issues Involved:Challenge to imposition of Value Added Tax and Entry Tax; Violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of law; Direct filing of writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy; Allegation of discrimination and ultra vires to the constitution.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the imposition of Value Added Tax and Entry Tax by the respondents, alleging violation of natural justice and failure to follow legal provisions. The writ petition was filed directly without utilizing the remedy under Section 46(5) of the M.P. VAT Act, claiming that the Act is discriminatory and ultra vires to the constitution. However, during the hearing, it was revealed that an appeal had been filed under Section 46(5) of the Act, along with a request for waiver of pre-deposit. As the appeal was pending before the competent authority, the court deemed it inappropriate to intervene at that stage.In light of the above, the court issued specific directions. The appellant was instructed to deposit 10% of the disputed amount within 10 days before the Appellate Authority. Upon this deposit, the Appellate Authority was directed to hear the appeal, consider the application for stay, and decide on the waiver of pre-deposit within one month from the appearance of the parties. Importantly, no coercive recovery measures were to be initiated against the petitioner until the decision on the stay and waiver application. The order was contingent upon the petitioner depositing the required amount by a specified date and appearing before the Appellate Authority as scheduled.Consequently, the court disposed of the petition based on the directions issued. The judgment emphasized the procedural requirements and the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention. It balanced the interests of the parties by allowing the appeal process to proceed while safeguarding the petitioner from immediate coercive actions, subject to compliance with the specified conditions.