2023 (6) TMI 689 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Petitioner Granted Appeal, Deposits 25% Tax, Tribunal to Consider Grounds Promptly

The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal against the revision order and demand notice before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal. The ... Maintainability of appeal - failure to file appeal within time (delay of 83 days) - sufficient reason for delay given or not - main contention of the petitioner is that he accounted for the alleged deficit of stock of 11,179 bags of cement but the same was not considered properly by the concerned authorities - HELD THAT:- Since the said aspect is a pure question of fact which can well be appreciated by AP VAT Appellate Tribunal if an appeal were to be filed before the Tribunal, the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and liberty can be given to the petitioner to file appeal on suitable terms. The impugned order dated 12.11.2021 shows that an appeal can be filed before AP VAT Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam within sixty days. The said period of sixty days should be reckoned from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the said order was served on petitioner’s GST Counsel who died on 20.11.2021 without disclosing the said fact. Therefore, the petitioner’s knowledge can be reckoned from the date of receipt of notice dated 20.01.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent. The appeal has to be filed within sixty days from 20.01.2023. However appeal was not filed till date. Hence there is a delay of 83 days. The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned revision order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the 5th respondent and consequent demand notice dated 20.01.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent before AP VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam on the condition of petitioner depositing 25% of the demanded tax within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Issues involved:The issues in this case involve challenging the order confirming revision and demanding unpaid balance tax as illegal and arbitrary.Facts and Decision:The petitioner, a registered VAT dealer, faced an audit confirming a tax liability due to a deficit in stock of cement. Despite explanations, the tax liability was upheld. An appeal led to a remand for further verification, resulting in a conclusion of no stock variation. However, a subsequent revision order reinstated the original tax liability, leading to the writ petition.Legal Analysis:The Government Pleader argued for the availability of an appeal as a remedy, which the court acknowledged. Due to circumstances where the revision order was not directly served to the petitioner and the subsequent demand notice revealed the order, the court considered the delay in filing the appeal. The court found merit in the petitioner's claim regarding the stock deficit issue, allowing for the appeal to be filed with a deposit and condoning the delay.Court's Decision:The court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal against the revision order and demand notice before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the demanded tax within three weeks. The Tribunal was instructed to consider the grounds of appeal and make a decision promptly, without imposing any costs. Any pending applications were to be closed accordingly.