( 1 ) IN this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is for the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order staying the recovery of the entire demand of the impugned tax till the disposal of the petitioner's Appeal pending before the Additional Commissioner-IV, Department of trade and Taxes, Government of Delhi.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that for Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04, vide assessment Order dated 30. 3. 2005 a Demand of Rs. 5,80,09,272/- under the Local act and Rs. 9,88,41,922/- under the Central Act stood assessed. After a Review, the Demand was reduced to Rs. 4,30,19,815/- under the Local Act and rs. 2,79,43,711/- under the Central Act. The Review Order was appealed against before the First Appellate Authority who passed an Order under Section 43 (5) of the repealed Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for the sake of brevity 'dst Act')directing the Appellant/petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4. 20 crores under the dst Act and Rs. 14. 78 lacs under the Central Act; only the latter amount was deposited. So far as direction to deposit Rs. 4. 20 crores is concerned the appellant/petitioner had approached the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, delhi for relief. It was inter alia contended that the financial condition of the Petitioner/appellant was very poor and payment of such a huge amount would mean virtually throwing the Petitioner out of trade. In the present Petition it has been submitted "that the financial condition of the petitioner is not very strong. Pre-deposit of such a huge amount shall put the Petitioner into financial hardship". The Tribunal noted that although learned counsel for the parties had addressed arguments on the merits of the Appeal, the only question before the Tribunal pertained to the deposit of tax as a pre-condition for maintaining the Appeal before the First Appellate Authority:additional commissioner-IV. The Tribunal took the view that keeping the financial position of the Petitioner in perspective the Order dated 2. 2. 2006 by the First Appellate authority should be modified to the extent that it shall entertain the Appeal if the Appellant deposits Rs. 2 crores within a period of thirty days, i. e. , on or before 16. 9. 2006. It is this direction that has been assailed before us by means of this writ petition.

( 3 ) AT the hearing Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the Petitioner, had asserted that even if it is assumed that the Petitioner has sufficient liquidity to make the deposit of the Rs. 2 crores as per the direction of the tribunal, this direction was not in consonance with the law and hence ought to be set aside by this Court. He has further contended that the entire Demand pertaining to of Rs. 4,30,19,815/- under the DST Act was unsustainable under the statute and was, therefore, disputed in toto. This being the position the said sum, or Rs. 4. 20 crores, or Rs. 2 crores, could not be set-down as a pre-condition for entertaining the Appeal. Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran has vociferously argued that financial hardship is not a consideration under the Sales Tax laws as it indubitably is under the Excise and Customs statutes. His contention is that if a sum is disputed then its deposit cannot be made a pre-condition for entertaining the Appeal.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the Revenue Shri H. L. Taneja has fervently argued that we should abjure from going into the merits of the case; that as against the Demand of Rs. 4,13,19,815/- under the DST Act the Petitioner is now required to deposit Rs. 2 crores only, which is most reasonable. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Taneja on State of Punjab -vs- Punjab Fibres Ltd. , [2005] 139 stc 200 where it has been observed that if the language is clear and unambiguous courts ought not to grant relief solely on sympathetic considerations. This decision, however, militates against the Revenue for the reasons that there is a distinction, difference and divergence between the provisions of the Sales Tax act and Delhi Value Ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document