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 instructed to hear the appeal and decide on the waiver of pre-deposit within a month. No coercive recovery measures were allowed until the decision on the waiver application. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention and balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the appeal process to continue while protecting the petitioner from immediate coercive actions, subject to compliance with specified conditions.

---

---

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.

---