IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that tax authorities must consider evidence and adhere to natural justice principles when determining pre-deposit amounts and input tax credits.

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the appellant tendered draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith.

2. This Appeal arises out of order dated 09th June, 2023 in Second Appeal No.291 of 2020 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, on the ground of non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit dated 02nd March, 2023.

3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the appellant.

4. In this Appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised by the appellant.

“(i) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in confirming the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 96,88,278/- quantified by the lower authority.

(i)(a) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, pre- deposit amount at the rate of 20% of the tax amount confirmed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was just, fair and proper and in correct exercise of judicial discretion vested in it.

(1)(b) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in interpreting Section 73(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

(ii) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in confirming the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 96,88,278/- as quantified by the Jt. Commissioner (Appeals) without analyzing and examining the documentary evidences produced by the appellant and without providing any reasons for confirming the same.

(ii)(a) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get input tax credit under Section 11 of the GVAT Act on the ground that a vendor’s registration was cancelled ab initio and mis-match in the amount of input tax credit as per Form 201A filed by a vendor.

(iii) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get input tax credit under Section 11 of the GVAT Act on the ground that the vendor's registration was cancelled ab initio.

(iv) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get entire amount of input tax credit under Section 11 on the ground that there was mis- match in the amount of input tax credit as per Form 201A filed by a vendor.

(v) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that merely because the vendor dealer has failed to pay the necessary taxes into the Government Treasury, the amount of tax can be recovered from the purchasing dealer more so when the same was valid and subsisting when the transaction took place.

(vi) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the order of Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal is perverse in as much as:

(a) it fails to take into consideration and take proper cognizance of the various documentary evidences placed before it;

(b) it fails in not considering, adjudicating and dealing with the arguments and submissions made by the appellant;

(c) it fails to take cognizance of the fact that even on merits of the appellant's case no amount of tax and interest is required to be paid by the appellant in the facts and the circumstances of the case;

(d) it fails to consider and adjudicate upon the grounds challenging the gross violation of principles of natural justice which includes failure of the lower authorities to appreciate and examine the evidences and denial of opportunity to rebut the claims made by the Adjudicating Authority which has been merely upheld by the Jt. Commissioner (Appeals). On the