Tea Land vs State of Gujarat

Akil Kureshi, J.—In view of the limited controversy involved in these appeals, issue notice to the sole respondent, returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Government Pleader Shri Jaimin Gandhi waived service of notice for admission on behalf of the respondent. He is supplied with an advance copy. In these appeals, the common appellant has challenged common orders dated June 14, 2013, July 15, 2013 and August 16, 2013 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal", for short). Issue pertains to requirement of pre-deposit. Against the assessment orders passed for three separate assessment periods, the appellant has preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority demanded 25 per cent of the tax by way of pre-deposit. Against such order, the appellant preferred Second Appeal Nos. 224 of 2013 to 226 of 2013 before the Tribunal. On June 14, 2013, the Tribunal passed the following order:

Considering these broad parameters, the appellant is hereby directed to make the payment of 25 per cent of the tax demand and while considering this amount, if the appellant is entitled to any refund as result of order passed for any other years, the same may be taken into consideration and the amount payable shall be reduced to the extent of such refund. The balance of 25 per cent of the tax demand shall be paid within one month from today. On payment of this amount, the stay will come into operation. For compliance of this order and for production of challan, the hearing of these appeals is adjourned to July 15, 2013.

The appellant did not deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal in the said order. On July 15, 2013 before the Tribunal, the appellant requested that the requirement of pre-deposit be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent and he may be granted six equal monthly installments. The Tribunal rejected the requests and posted the appeals for further hearing on August 16, 2013.

In its order dated June 14, 2013, the Tribunal had granted the facility of adjustment of refund payable to the appellant towards the pre-deposit requirement. On August 16, 2013, the Tribunal noted the appellant''s contention that the assessing officer had previously passed orders in the earlier assessments, but such orders were cancelled and directions were given for passing fresh orders. However, no fresh orders are passed. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal noted that the appellant cannot seek adjustment of the refund since no order regarding refund has been passed. Be that as it may, on August 16, 2013, the Tribunal rejected the appeals since the requirement of pre-deposit was not fulfilled. These orders are in challenge before us.

We notice that even before the Tribunal the appellant''s main request was for reduction of pre-deposit requirement from 25 per cent, to 20 per cent and to grant installments. We are of the opinion that for such minor adjustment, we would not like to interfere in tax appeals, since no question of law can be stated to have arisen. Having said that we are still prepared to grant some further time to the appellant to fulfill the pre-deposit condition. Effectively this would cover the period of extension previously prayed by the appellant before the Tribunal.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an aged person. The proprietary concern engaged in the business has been closed down since long. The appellant has a strong arguable case in appeals. In facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals are disposed of with the following directions:

(1) Time for making pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal in its order dated June 14, 2013 is extended till March 15, 2014.

(2) If such amounts are deposited, the appeals of the appellant before the first appellate authority shall be taken up for hearing on merits. The appellate authority shall endeavour to hear the appeals expeditiously and preferably within four months thereafter.

(3) We are informed that after remand, the adjudicating authority has not passed any fresh order for the period 2003-04 and due to which, according to the counsel for the appellant, he is unable to claim the refund. The said authority shall pass final order as may be permissible under the law. We clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the contention of the counsel for the appellant that such proceedings have become time-barred, the adjudicating authority cannot pass any order for assessment of tax.

With the above directions, all tax appeals are disposed of.