2020 (12) TMI 238 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court overturns Tribunal's dismissal, stresses prima facie merits in stay applications.

M/s Mondelez India Foods Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/s Mondelez India Foods Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in dismissing the appeal arising out of the stay order of the appellate authority without considering prima facie merits by a non-reasoned order.2. Whether the Tribunal should maintain consistency in granting full protection towards unpaid VAT dues similar to previous orders by the High Court for the same assessee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Tribunal's Dismissal Without Considering Prima Facie Merits:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal arising from the stay order of the appellate authority without considering the prima facie merits of the case. The Tribunal recorded that it could not go into the question of prima facie case at this stage as it would affect the merit of the case. However, the High Court held that it is well settled that while deciding the application for grant of stay, the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal is bound to consider 'prima facie case' and 'financial hardship' if pleaded by the assessee. The Tribunal's refusal to consider the prima facie case solely on the ground that any finding recorded at this stage may affect the final adjudication is erroneous. The High Court emphasized that the 'prima facie' consideration is only preliminary and should not influence the final decision. Consequently, the High Court found the Tribunal's order contrary to settled law and liable to be set aside.2. Consistency in Granting Full Protection Towards Unpaid VAT Dues:The High Court previously granted full protection to the assessee in similar circumstances, directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on merits without insisting on further deposits beyond what had already been made. The High Court noted that the Tribunal, in the second round of litigation, had granted stay to the extent of 50%, which was upheld by the Tribunal without considering the prima facie case. The High Court reiterated that in similar past cases, it had directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits upon the assessee furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee for the balance amount of the tax demanded. The High Court found that the Tribunal should have maintained consistency in such matters, especially when no change in circumstances was recorded during the remand assessment proceedings.Summary of Orders:The High Court recalled its judgment dated 01.09.2020 due to palpable errors in directing deposits as a condition for stay, which were more than the amounts directed by the Tribunal. The High Court directed that the revisionists shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax for the Assessment Years 2013-14 (VAT), 2014-15 (CST), and 2014-15 (VAT). Any amount already deposited by the revisionists would be adjusted. The appeals were to be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible. The questions framed were answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The revisions were disposed of in terms of the said order.