IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
T.S.Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
A.S.L. Enterprises Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Senior Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax, Central Audit Unit And Others - Respondent
MAT No. 783, 786, 1370, 1664, 896, 1898, 2072, 792, 982, 985, 986, 1619, 1751, 1752, 791, 1786, 1899, 1958, 1991, 1787, 669, 724, 1031/2017, 373/2018, 374/2018, 652/2018, 676 OF 2018 FMA 733 OF 2018, FMA 915, 916, 912, 918/2019, I.A. CAN 1, 2 OF 2017, CAN 1 OF 2018 (OLD NO. C.A.N. 5148, 5151, 5956, 5958, 5959, 5961, 5963, 5964, 6086, 6090, 8991, 8992, 8993, 9655, 9909, 9913, 9912, 9914, 10240, 10106, 10107, 11996 , 12153 OF 2017, 222, 223, 720, 1185, 1188, 1405, 2796 OF 2018, 4722, 4723, 6389, 6390 OF 2019)
Decided On : 25-03-2022
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 84(1) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (WBVaT Act), which required dealers to produce proof of payment of 15% of the disputed tax as a condition for entertaining an appeal against an assessment order. The Court held that the proviso was a procedural law that did not infringe the vested right of appeal granted under Section 84(1) and that the condition imposed was not onerous or unreasonable.
Fact of the Case:
Several dealers challenged the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 84(1) of the WBVaT Act, which required them to produce proof of payment of 15% of the disputed tax as a condition for entertaining an appeal against an assessment order. The dealers argued that the proviso violated their right to appeal under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and that it was discriminatory and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the second proviso to Section 84(1) of the WBVaT Act was a procedural law that did not infringe the vested right of appeal granted under Section 84(1). The Court noted that the proviso merely prescribed the procedure for entertaining an appeal and that the condition imposed was not onerous or unreasonable. The Court also held that the proviso was not discriminatory or arbitrary, as it applied equally to all dealers who wished to file an appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the second proviso to Section 84(1) of the WBVaT Act infringed the vested right of appeal granted under Section 84(1). 2. Whether the condition imposed by the proviso was onerous or unreasonable. 3. Whether the proviso was discriminatory or arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right of appeal is a statutory right, and the legislature is competent to impose conditions for exercising such right. 2. The condition imposed by the proviso was not onerous or unreasonable, as it was a reasonable measure to ensure that only genuine appeals were entertained. 3. The proviso was not discriminatory or arbitrary, as it applied equally to all dealers who wished to file an appeal.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 84(1) of the WBVaT Act.
JUDGMENT
T.S. Sivagnanam, J. - These intra court appeals filed by the dealers who were registered under the provisions of the West Bengal Value added Tax, act 2003 (the act) are directed against the judgment and order dated March 30, 2017 in M/s. Vatech Wabag Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Midnapore Charge and Others 69 Sales Tax advisors 120. The appellants had filed the writ petitions seeking varied prayers and essentially in all the cases, the writ petitioners had challenged the vires of the second proviso to Section 84 (1) of the act. The Learned Single Bench by judgment dated March 30, 2017, dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the vires of the second proviso to section 84 (1) of the act.
2. Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned advocate appearing for the appellant Vatech Wabag Limited, the lead case broadly raised five contentions:-
2.1. The first being that payment of 15 % of the disputed tax under Section 84 is a compulsory extraction and partakes the colour of a separate levy/tax hence unauthorized by law. Secondly, it was contended that under certain circumstances the act gives an opportunity to file appeal without prepayment which the revenue does not accept. Thirdly, the right to appeal is a substantive right which cannot be taken away, once the lis has started. Fourthly, the impugned provision is hit by the general principles of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, and, lastly the impugned provision infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) as the restriction contained in the impugned provision is far from being reasonable and realistic.
2.2. Elaborating his submission, on the first contention, it is submitted that the word used in Section 84 is 'payment' and not 'deposit'. The impugned proviso to Section 84 (1) nowhere specifically mentions that the amount has to be returned to the dealer and even Section 62 of the act which deals with refunds does not specifically mention that the prepayment made in terms of the impugned provision has to be returned. Reference was made to the P. Ramanatha, advance Law Lexicon to state that the payment is defined to be act of paying or that which is paid; discharge of a debt, obligations or duty; satisfaction of claim; recompense; the fulfillment of a promise or the performance of an agreement; the discharge in money of a sum due. Further it is submitted that the payment has no narrow technical legal meaning restricted to payment of money, as it signifies satisfaction of a claim. With regard to the meaning of the word 'deposit', it is submitted that the advance Law Lexicon explains deposit to mean that there must be a liability to return it to the party by whom it is made, it is not a sum lent but a sum deposited. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax. U.P - II Versus Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited (1988) 172 ITR 321, it is submitted that it has been clearly held that essence of deposit is a liability to return. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Secretary, West Bengal Council of H.S. Education Versus Soumyadeep Banerjee aIR 2010 CaL 161 (FB), it is submitted that the 'deposit' cannot be synonymous with 'payment'. It is submitted that insisting upon payment of 15 % of the disputed tax in terms of the impugned proviso is in the nature of a compulsory extraction and therefore it has to be in the nature of a tax however, the WBVaT has no provision to tax the right to appeal of an aggrieved dealer.
2.3. With regard to the second contention, it is submitted that Section 2(45) of the act defines the term 'tax', Section 2(46) defines 'tax due' and Section 2(49) defines 'tax payable'. It is submitted that the 'tax payable' is defined as tax payable under the act on the sales or purchases but does not include tax due. 'Tax due' is defined as the amount which becomes due as per any notice of demand, but after the date mentioned therein. It is submitted 'tax due'
Anant Mills Co. Ltd. vs. . State of Gujarat (1975) 2 SCC 175
Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. P Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720
Benette Coleman & Company vs. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788
Chatter Singh Baid vs. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1984 Cal 283
DCTO vs. . Cameo Exports (2006) 147 STC 218 (Mad
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tribunal Central 1 Assessment Circle
H.K. Dada (India) Limited vs. State of M.P. AIR 1953 SC 221
Har Devi Asnani vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (2011) 14 SCC 160
Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited vs. State of Bihar & Others (2003) 11 SCC 40
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602
Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula vs. Motibhai Nagjibhai (MANU/SC/0328/1965 : AIR 1966 SC 459
Jayam and Company vs. Assistant Commissioner & Others (2016) 15 SCC 125
Jindal Stainless Steel vs. State of Orissa (2012) 54 VST 1
Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Khazan Chand Nathi Ram vs. State of Haryana & Others (2004) 136 STC 261 (P&H
M. Pentiah & others vs. Muddala Veeramallapa & others (MANU/SC/0263/1960 : AIR 1961 SC 1107
Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank (2011) 4 SCC 548
Prakrith Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2009) 19 VST 589
R.C. Tobacco Private Limited vs. Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 725
Royal Insulation Private Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Manali Assessment Circle
Sham Rao vs. Perulekar vs. . The District Magistrate Thane
Shayara Bano vs. Union of India & Ors.
Shyam Kishore & Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anothers (1993) 1 SCC 22
Shyam Sunder vs. . Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rakesh Kohli and Another (2012) 6 SCC 312
State of Tripura vs. Monoranjan Chakraborty (2001) 10 SCC 740
The State of A.P vs. McDowell and Co. (1996) 3 SCC 709
Union of India & Others vs. NITDIP Textiles Processors Private Limited & Anothers (2012) 1 SCC 226
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited vs. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra & Another (2008) 10 SCC 139
The right of appeal is a statutory right, and the legislature is competent to impose conditions for exercising such right.
(1) Challenges to tax statutes made under Article 14 of Constitution of India can be on grounds relatable to discrimination as well as grounds relatable to manifest arbitrariness.(2) Third proviso to....
The right to appeal is a vested right that cannot be retroactively altered by subsequent amendments unless explicitly stated.
Appeal – Onerous condition of payment of 50% of amount awarded will not be applicable to complaints filed prior to commencement of 2019 Act.
The court established that the right to appeal can be conditioned by statute, and such conditions do not inherently violate constitutional rights.
(1) Parliament has power to legislate even retrospectively to take into its fold pre-existing contract and rights executed between parties in larger public interest.(2) Real Estate (Regulation and De....
The proof of payment for tax admitted is directory in nature, allowing amendments to the memorandum of appeal without barring access to statutory remedies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.