AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner, having challenged the order passed by the authorities under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (for short, ''the KVAT Act'') in Appeal No. 2132/2011 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) invoking Section 63 of the KVAT Act, the STAT directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax, which when not complied with, led to dismissal of the appeal by order dated 25.08.2011 Annexure ''O'', following which, the respondents initiated action for recovery of the moneys. Hence, these writ petitions for the following reliefs:
(a) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order of the Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed for non-payment of 50% of the alleged disputed tax dated 26.07.2012 in KVAT Appeal No. 2132/2011-12 produced as Annexure ''Z''.
(b) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order passed by the Appellate/Appeal Authority of the respondent No. 3 passed u/s 62(6) of the KVAT Act, 2003 filed by the petitioner board for non-payment of 50% of alleged disputed tax dated 25.08.2011 in Appeal Nos. KVAT. AP. 129 & 130/11-12 produced as Annexure ''O''.
(c) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice of demand tax dated 27.05.2011 for the tax period 01.04.2009 to 30.04.2009 being a sum of Rs. 1,75,81,054/- passed by the respondent No. 3 produced as Annexure ''C''.
(d) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice of demand tax dated 27.05.2011 for the tax period 01.05.2009 to 11.05.2009 being a sum of Rs. 1,28,74,624/- passed by the respondent No. 3 produced as Annexure ''D''.
(e) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Assessment order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 27.05.2011 u/s 38(7) of the KVAT Act, 2003 produced as Annexure ''E''.
(f) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare that the function of the petitioner board is only in the nature of service as prescribed u/s 2(12) of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 and does not fall in the gambit of KVAT Act, 2003.
(g) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to give effect to the representation forwarded by the Chairman of the petitioner board to the respondent No. 1 dated 14.06.2011 to drop all further proceedings against the petitioner Board initiated by the respondent No. 3 produced as Annexure ''F''.
(h) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition against the respondent No. 3 to stop all and any further recovery proceedings and not interfere in the day to day functioning of the petitioner board including action contemplated u/s 45 of the KVAT Act, 2003.
(i) Pass any other order as the Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper in considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, suffice it to extract sub-section (4) of Section 63 of the KVAT Act, which reads thus:
(4) The appeal, or the memorandum of cross-objections, shall be in the prescribed form, shall be verified in the prescribed manner, and, in the case of an appeal preferred by any person other than an officer [empowered by the State Government or the Commissioner] under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by [proof of payment of one half of tax or other amount disputed and also] a fee equal to two percent of the amount of assessment objected to, provided that the sum payable in no case be less than two hundred rupees or more than one thousand rupees.
Payment of one half of tax or other amount disputed a pre-condition for consideration of the appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 63 of the KVAT Act, when not-complied with by the petitioner, on the filing of appeal No. 2132/2011-12, and as ordered by the STAT, no exception can be taken to the dismissal of the appeal by the order impugned Annexure ''O''.
It is trite law that the right to appeal is a creature of a Statute and there is no reason why the Legislature while granting the right cannot impose conditions for exercise of such right, so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions, rendering the right almost illusory, as observed by the Apex Court in The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, followed by Seth Nand Lal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others,
Petitions, devoid of merit, are rejected.