2018 (8) TMI 66 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appeal dismissed due to delay & non-compliance with tax deposit requirements. Form 18 authenticity disputed.

The appellant, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, challenged an assessment carried out in 2010 under Section 17D of the Act. The ... Assessment under the KGST regime settled by Section 17D procedure - Pre-condition of deposit for filing appeal under the Section 17D mechanism - No provision for condonation of delay in appeals under Section 17D - Delay and laches in seeking judicial relief - Authenticity of Form 18 declarations and bogus invoice allegationsAssessment under the KGST regime settled by Section 17D procedure - Pre-condition of deposit for filing appeal under the Section 17D mechanism - No provision for condonation of delay in appeals under Section 17D - Validity of challenge to assessments completed under the Section 17D procedure and maintainability of delayed appeal/writ. - HELD THAT: - Section 17D was enacted to finalise assessments under the KGST regime by a Fast Track Team and to provide a limited appeal route to the Tribunal with a pre-condition of deposit and a 45-day limitation without a provision for condonation. The appellant's statutory appeal was filed belatedly and the deposit condition was not satisfied; according to the respondents the appeal before the Tribunal was rejected in 2015. The writ petition impugning the assessments was filed in 2018 after further delay. In these circumstances the Court finds that the appellant has not established entitlement to interference: the statutory scheme confined remedies and the appellant's laches and failure to comply with appeal pre-conditions disentitle it to relief. The Court therefore declines to examine the factual merits (including the authenticity of Form 18 or the entries in Exhibit P4) in light of the laches and procedural non-compliance. [Paras 2, 4]The challenge to the assessments under the Section 17D mechanism is not entertained due to inordinate delay and non-compliance with statutory appeal pre-conditions; the writ appeal is dismissed.Authenticity of Form 18 declarations and bogus invoice allegations - Delay and laches in seeking judicial relief - Whether the Court should adjudicate the factual contention regarding genuineness of Form 18 declarations despite procedural delay. - HELD THAT: - The appellant relied on Exhibit P4 and asserted that transactions were accounted for by the other dealer, but the respondent maintained that genuineness of Form 18 was disputed as invoices were alleged to be bogus. The Court refrained from delving into the factual controversy because the appellant's prolonged delay in pursuing remedies, failure to meet statutory appeal requirements and belated approach to this Court precluded judicial intervention. Thus the factual issue was not adjudicated on merits and was effectively foreclosed by the finding of laches and procedural non-compliance. [Paras 3, 4]The Court does not decide the factual dispute over Form 18 genuineness and refuses to entertain the challenge on account of laches and procedural defaults.Final Conclusion: The writ appeal is dismissed: assessments for 2002-03 and 2003-04 stood under the Section 17D scheme, the appellant's statutory appeal was belated and the deposit pre-condition unmet, and in view of laches the High Court declines to interfere with the assessment orders. Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 17D of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 1963.2. Validity of assessment orders for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04.3. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal under Section 17D.4. Allegation of Form 18 declarations being not genuine.5. Consideration of Exhibit P4 in the case.Analysis:1. The appellant, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, challenged an assessment carried out in 2010 under Section 17D of the Act. Section 17D was introduced during the transition from the KGST Act to the KVAT regime to settle assessments under the previous tax regime. The provision required assessments to be completed by a team of officers known as the 'Fast Track Team' and allowed appeals only to the Tribunal within a specific time frame. The appellant's appeal was grossly delayed, and the pre-condition of depositing the tax demanded was not met, leading to the rejection of the appeal in 2015.2. The assessment orders in question pertained to the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, with allegations against the appellant regarding the authenticity of Form 18 declarations and the eligibility for concessional tax rates. Despite the appellant's argument that transactions were accounted for and taxes paid based on Exhibit P4, the delay in filing the appeal and non-compliance with procedural requirements were highlighted by the court.3. The court emphasized that the mere fact that another dealer accounted for transactions did not absolve the appellant from liability, especially when the authenticity of Form 18 declarations was in question. The appellant's delay in filing the appeal, including a belated appeal in 2011 and failure to approach the court earlier, contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.4. Exhibit P4, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer in 2013, was considered in the context of the overall delay in seeking legal recourse. The court found the appellant guilty of laches due to the significant delay between the issuance of Exhibit P4 and the filing of the writ petition in 2018. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the appeal, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissing the Writ Appeal, with each party bearing their respective costs.