TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestioning the decision of the Appellate Authority to demand a portion of tax by way of pre-deposit, the Value Added Tax Tribunal can go into the merits of the order of assessment without deciding the question of pre-deposit ?" 2. On the short ground of propriety of the Tribunal in deciding the question on merits when the sole question before the Tribunal in appeal filed was regarding the pre-deposit, we are inclined to quash the order. Our reasons are as follows. 3. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated September 05, 2013 in Second Appeal No.675 of 2011. Such appeal was filed questioning the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al concerning the question of pre-deposit. The Tribunal was called upon to decide whether the appellant, to maintain its appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, should be asked to deposit the entire amount of tax by way of pre-deposit or only part thereof or none at all. The Tribunal had to answer such question as found appropriate. In our opinion, the Tribunal under no circumstances could have bypassed the first appellate stage and decided the appeal as if it was a second appeal on merits before the Tribunal. Till the issue of appropriate amount to be deposited by way of pre-deposit was sorted out and such amount was deposited by the appellant, the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was not even properly instituted. In a recent judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms of proviso, the appellate authority for reasons recorded in writing relaxed the requirement of full pre-deposit. In the present case, the Appellate Commissioner exercised such powers and required the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount confirmed by the adjudicating authority. When the appellant failed to fulfil such requirement, his appeal came to be dismissed. It was against this order that the appellant had preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The scope of the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, had to be limited to the question of finding out whether the order/passed by the Commissioner insisting on the appellant depositing certain amount by way of pre-deposit was valid or not and resultantly, his decision to reject such an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to this complication. In the appeal, his main grounds were against the assessment order. His prayers pertained only to the issues on merits about the additions made by the Assessing Officer. There was no prayer for setting aside the appellate order of imposing condition and subsequently, dismissing his appeal when he failed to fulfil such condition. Even if it were so, the Tribunal could have either permitted the appellant to suitably amend the prayer or if the appellant was not willing to do so, dismiss his appeal as not maintainable. In our opinion, the Tribunal could not have bypassed the first appellate authority and statutory requirement of pre-deposit, unless it was waived by an order in writing. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority, there does not arise any question of circumventing the very stage and exercise the powers of first appellate authority. We say so as the Statute provides that even on adjudication of the issue on merit by the first appellate authority, either side is entitled to challenge such reasonings before the second appellate authority. Not only the parties and the second appellate authority would be deprived of the reasonings of the first appellate authority but chance of either sides of availing the opportunity of appeal on merit also gets marred by this process. Even if it is felt by the Tribunal that the issue is covered by the decision of the higher forum, it can always direct the parties to agitate these aspects before the concerned autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use predeposit was not made. The Commissioner [Appeals] had not gone into the merits. Therefore, the only question before the Tribunal was whether predeposit was required or not. The Tribunal has chosen to go into the merits and decided the appeal on merits also. This should not have been done." 8.2 It is not the case of either side that an identical question of law was pending before the Tribunal in some other appeals concerning the very assessee, or identical question of law in respect of very assessee for different assessment year was before the Tribunal and in such circumstances, with the consent of the parties it chose to conclude on merit.  ....