IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
RAJAI MOTORS – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 4357 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Tax - Business of reselling motor cycles, scooter and their parts - Assessment Order –Held, While considering this aspect, Tribunal has over-looked fact that petitioner never had an opportunity to argue this case even when base order was passed - It is averred to be presumptive in nature by petitioner in present petition as well as in the Appeals preferred before First and the Second Appellate Authorities - Therefore, to direct amount of Rs.3 Crore as pre-deposits surely would warrant interference of this Court - Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal whereby it ordered the pre-deposit of tax of Rs. 3 crores on the basis of Second Appeal No. 593 of 2021.
2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘the VAT Act’ hereinafter) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (‘the CST Act’ hereinafter). The petitioner is engaged in the business of reselling motor cycles, scooter and their parts as well as having the service station of the two wheelers. The present petition concerns the Assessment year 2016-17. The purchases and the sales made by the petitioner were admitted in returns filed under the VAT Act and the CST Act.
2.1 The Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Godhara, Unit-46, Panchmahal on 31.03.2021 for the Financial Year 2016-17.
2.2 The Assessing Authority issued notice for Assessment under section 34(2) of the VAT Act and the CST Act. The petitioner remained present. The Assessing Officer was in a hurry to complete the assessment and the order was passed on 31.03.2021, where it had not accepted the sales as per audited balance sheet received by him from the Income Tax Department and has taken the base of purchases made against the Form ‘C’ from the online data available on the commercial tax website. It also considered the same to be suppressed purchases without providing data and details. It eventually worked out the total sales at Rs. 50,37,28,684/- on the basis of sales disclosed at the time of surprise visit and imposed the tax @ 15% of the turnover which was followed by demand of tax, interest and penalty.
2.3 The challenge was made before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who granted the stay against the recovery of deposit by deposit of partial amount of Rs. 60,64,430/- against the total demand and the stay was granted.
2.4 The said authority canceled the stay order vide order dated 12.07.2021 and directed to pay the balance sum of total demanded amount of Rs. 16,24,82,295/-. The First Appeal was dismissed on 24.08.2021 for non-payment of pre-deposit.
2.5 Thereafter, Second Appeal No. 593 of 2021 was preferred. The respondent authority initiated the recovery proceedings against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner made representation. The properties of the petitioner were attached by the respondent authorities and secured by assets worth approximately Rs. 61 Crore.
2.6 The VAT Tribunal passed an order on 17.01.2022 and directed the full amount of tax of Rs.3 Crore as a condition of pre-deposit to be payable within a period of one month on or before 28.02.2022.
2.7 The grievance on the part of the petitioner is that the VAT Tribunal decided the entire Second Appeal at the pre-deposit stage of hearing. It adjudicated and decided that the petitioner had collected tax and not paid the Government Authority. The assessment by the Assessing Officer has been done on the basis of assumption and presumption. The First Appellate Authority also had vacated interim protection despite having complied with the order of pre-deposit. The respondent authorities denied access to the remedies provided by law and have placed their onerous conditions.
3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17-01-2022 of the Gujarat Vat Tribunal.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct hearing of Second Appeal no 593 of 2021 on merits without Pre-deposit of Rs. 3 Crores.
(D) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition Lordships, may be pleased to grant interim as well as Ad-interim reliefs and thereby stay the recovery as well as all the recover proceedings for the AY 2016
The court emphasized the importance of considering property attachment and the amount already deposited in determining the necessity of pre-deposit, and highlighted the need for timely completion of ....
The Tribunal must consider the prima facie case of the appellant before imposing pre-deposit requirements, as mandated by the VAT Act.
The court established that tax authorities must consider evidence and adhere to natural justice principles when determining pre-deposit amounts and input tax credits.
Point of Law – The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in petrochemicals, which is registered under the VAT Act, 2003 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Th....
The court allows remittance for re-adjudication of tax matters subject to stipulated pre-deposits, balancing interests of both parties.
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.