Madhya Pradesh High Court
Svil Mines Limited Gudri Katni vs The Commissioner Of Sales Tax Judgement ... on 10 October, 2013
Writ Petition No.17680/2013
Writ Petition No.17682/2013
Writ Petition No.17686/2013
1
10.10.2013
Shri G.N.Purohit, Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek
Oswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents.
This order shall decide all these petitions involving similar question based on similar set of facts. In these petitions the petitioner has challenged the appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner of the Commercial Tax by which appeals preferred against the block assessment orders framed against the petitioner and liability has been imposed upon the petitioner were dismissed. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court on following grounds :-
i) That the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14103/2010 and other cases were not followed by the respondent no.4;
ii) That the issues which were decided in favour of the petitioner in the earlier assessment orders were also not considered by the respondent no.4.
iii) That for filing of an appeal before the Commercial Tax Appellate Board, the petitioner is required to deposit 20% of the demand which the petitioner is not possessing because all the business premises, accounts, etc. have been taken into possession by the respondents for recovery of the aforesaid amount, so at present the petitioner Company is having no liquidity to deposit the amount of tax for entertaining the appeal before the M.P. Commercial Tax Board.
It is submitted that this petition may be entertained. In reply to it Shri Samdarshi Tiwari appearing for the State submitted that against the appellate orders, the petitioner is having Writ Petition No.17680/2013 Writ Petition No.17682/2013 Writ Petition No.17686/2013 2 efficacious alternative remedy of filing second appeal under the M.P. V.A.T. Act so this petition may not be entertained. So far as statutory deposit is concerned, it is submitted that when the statute has provided for deposit of the statutory amount then the petitioner is bound to deposit the same and merely there is some statutory pre- deposit, this petition may not be entertained.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that under the provisions of M.P. V.A.T. Act, there is a provision of filing of second appeal against the appellate order and if the petitioner is having efficacious statutory remedy of filing second appeal then normally this court should not entertain the writ petition merely on the ground that the petitioner is required to make statutory pre-deposit or does not possess the liquidated amount for deposit of the statutory amount before filing of the second appeal. The petitioner may move an application before the Board for seeking exemption from deposit of such an amount as the entire properties including the bank accounts, etc. have been seized by the respondents and the petitioner is not having any liquidated amount for deposit of the same, which would be considered by the Board on its merits.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as all the properties of the petitioner have been taken into possession by the respondents, so, till the decision of the appeal before the Board, the respondents may be restrained to dispose of the property for recovery of the amount, because in case the second appeal is allowed, the petitioner may not be remedy-less.
Though the prayer is opposed by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, but looking to the peculiar facts of the case we find it appropriate to Writ Petition No.17680/2013 Writ Petition No.17682/2013 Writ Petition No.17686/2013 3 dispose of these petitions with following directions :-
i) The petitioner may file second appeal against the appellate order, annexure P/7, within a statutory period or within a period of 30 days from today, whichever is later.
ii) The petitioner may also seek exemption from deposit of the statutory pre-deposit for filing second appeal before the Board for submitting necessary facts and in case such prayer is made, the Board shall consider the said prayer sympathetically.
iii) The Board shall also made endeavour to hear and decide the matter expeditiously as early as possible within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of such an appeal because as per the statement of the petitioner entire running business is closed since last 15 months.
iv) Till the decision of second appeal by the Board it is directed that the properties of the petitioner which have been seized and taken into possession by the respondents shall not be disposed of or auctioned for recovery of the dues.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of with no order as to cost.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
HS