Case Law Details
Laxmi Dye Chem Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
In the case of Laxmi Dye Chem vs. State of Gujarat, the petitioner challenged the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal’s orders regarding pre-deposit conditions necessary to entertain their revision applications. Initially, on March 21, 2023, the Tribunal required the petitioner to deposit significant amounts as a precondition for hearing their applications. This led to the dismissal of the revision applications due to non-compliance with this order on June 30, 2023. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act (GVAT Act), particularly Section 75, which governs revision applications against orders issued by the Commissioner.
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal was not justified in imposing a pre-deposit requirement under Section 75 of the GVAT Act. Their argument rested on the interpretation that such a requirement is explicitly stated under Section 73(4) of the GVAT Act for appeals, not for revisions filed under Section 75. The petitioner’s legal counsel highlighted the absence of provisions in Section 75 that allow for pre-deposit orders, stating that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction. Upon reviewing the provisions and arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s imposition of a pre-deposit was erroneous. As a result, the Court quashed the Tribunal’s orders, restoring the revision applications to the Tribunal for further consideration without the pre-deposit condition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
[1] By these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Revision Applications Nos.28 and 29 of 2021. Initially, the petitioner challenged the order dated 21st March 2023, whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.23,89,978/- and Rs.1,56,77,185/- as a condition precedent as pre-deposit to entertain the revision applications. During the pendency of these petitions, the Tribunal passed an order dated 30th June 2023 rejecting the revision applications Nos.28 and 29 of 2021 on the ground of non-compliance of the order dated 21st March 2023 of pre-deposit.
[2] The petitioner, thereafter, amended the petitions by preferring a Civil Application No.1 of 2023, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 8th March 2023.
[3] As the issue arose in these petitions is with regard to as to whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioner to pre-deposit the outstanding tax amount in the revisional proceedings filed under Section 75 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, “the GVAT Act”). The facts giving rise to such revisions are not discussed in detail.
[4] Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed Revision Applications challenging the orders of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Appeal-1 Ahmedabad dated 19th March 2021 under Section 75 of the GVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act for the assessment period 2011-12.
[5] It was submitted that as per provisions under Section 75 of the GVAT Act, the Tribunal could not have passed an order of pre-deposit and on failure thereof, ought not to have dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioner.
[6] Learned advocate has invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 73, 74 and 75 of the GVAT Act.
[7] On the other hand, learned A.G.P. Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondents authorities submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order of pre-deposit and subsequent order of rejection of the revision applications taking into consideration the provisions of Section 73 of the GVAT Act, which provides for pre-deposit of prior filing of the appeal before the Tribunal.
[8] Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, in order to decide the issue pending in these petitions, it would be germane to refer the relevant provisions of the GVAT Act as under:
“73. Appeal. –
(1) An appeal from every original order, not being an order mentioned in section 74, passed under this Act or the rules, shall lie.
(a) if the order is made by a an Assistant Commissioner or Commercial Tax Officer, or any other officer subordinate thereto, to the Deputy Commissioner;
(b) if the order is made by a Deputy Commissioner, to the Joint Commissioner;
(c) if the order is made by a Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, or Commissioner, to the Tribunal.
(2) In the case of an order passed in appeal by a Deputy Commissioner or, as the case may be, by a Joint Commissioner, a second appeal shall lie to the Tribunal.
(3) Subject to the provisions of section 84, no appeal shall be entertained unless it is filed within sixty days from the date of communication of the order appealed against.
(4) No appeal against an order of assessment shall ordinarily be entertained by an appellate authority, unless such appeal is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of the tax in respect of which an appeal has been preferred :
[Provided that an appellate authority may, if it thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain an appeal against such order-
(a) without payment of tax with, penalty (if any) or, as the case may be, of the penalty, or
(b) on proof of payment of such smaller sum as if may consider reasonable, or
(c) on the appellant furnishing in the prescribed manner, security for such amount as the appellate authority may direct.]
(5) The Commissioner, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order passed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner or, as the case may be, by the Joint Commissioner has been preferred by the other party to the Tribunal may, within thirty days of receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objection against any part of the order passed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner or, as the case may be, by the Joint Commissioner and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal.
(6) Subject to such rules of procedure as may be prescribed, an appellate authority may pass such order on appeal as it deems just and proper.
(7) Every order passed in appeal under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sections 75, 78 and 79, be final.
74. Non-appealable orders. – No appeal or no application for revision shall lie against,-
(a) a notice issued under this Act calling upon a dealer for assessment or asking a dealer to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for an offence under this Act; or
(b) an order of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 17;
(c) an order pertaining to the seizure or retention of books of account, register and other documents; or
[(d) an order sanctioning prosecution under this Act;]
(e) [***]
75. Revision. – (1) Subject to the provisions, of section 74 and to any rules made there under-
(a) the Commissioner of his own motion within three years or on an application made to him within one year from the date of any order passed by any officer appointed under section 16 to assist him, may call for and examine the record of any such order and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper [within five years from the date of the said order of the officer appointed under section 16 to assist him.]
(b) the Tribunal, on application made to it against an order of the Commissioner (not being an order passed under sub-section (2) of section 73 in second appeal or under clause (a) in revision on an application) within four months from the date of the communication of the order may call for an examine the record of any such order, and pass such order thereon as it thinks just and proper.
(2) Where an appeal lies under section 73 and no appeal has been filed, no proceedings in revision under this section shall be entertained upon application:
Provided that the proceedings in revision may be entertained upon an application where the applicant satisfies the Commissioner that he had sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal against the order in respect of which an application for revision is made.
(3) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person, unless such person has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(4) Where the Commissioner or the Tribunal rejects any application for revision under this section, the Commissioner or, as the case may be the Tribunal shall record the reasons for such rejection.”
[9] On conjoint reading of the above provisions of the GVAT Act, it is clear that the provisions of Section 75 of the GVAT Act would be applicable in case of an application made to the Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner, not being an order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GVAT Act in second appeal under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the GVAT Act. Therefore, it is clear that any application made to the Tribunal under Section 75(1)(b) of the GVAT Act would be an application challenging the order against which no appeal is filed under Section 73 of the GVAT Act, which is not an appealable under Section 74 of the GVAT Act as well as no application before the Tribunal could be filed against any order passed by the Commissioner under Section 75(1)(a) of the GVAT Act.
[10] On bare perusal of Section 75 of the GVAT Act, it does not provide for passing any order of pre-deposit as it is provided under Section 73(4) of the GVAT Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 21st March 2023 is beyond the scope of Section 75 of the GVAT Act insisting for pre-deposit to entertain the revision applications filed by the petitioner.
[11] Both these petitions, therefore, deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21st March 2023 passed by the Tribunal, being contrary to the provisions under Section 75 of the GVAT Act, is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence, the order dated 30th June 2023 passed by the Tribunal for non-compliance of order dated 21st March 2023 is also required to be quashed and set aside, and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The Revisions Applications Nos.28 and 29 of 2021 filed by the petitioner are ordered to be restored to the file of the Tribunal.
Author Bio
