The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to waive the mandatory 50% pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court held that statutory conditions for admission of appeals cannot be waived under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32e5 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,IHE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 35831 OF 2022
Between:
M/s. HCI Technocrats, Rep.by its Partner Smt. Sushma Narkhede, Wo. Kishore Narkhede, aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, Vijayapuri Colony, Tarnaka, Hyderabad
,..PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction one more particularly in the nature of Writ of certiorari by calling for records from the Respondent No.2 in TMP No.0612022 in AR 34/2022 on the file of the VAT Appellate Tribunal, at Hyderabad, constituted under the TS VAT Act, Hyderabad, by setting aside the order dt 18.07.2022 dismissing of TMP No.0612022 in AR: 3412020 and the subsequent rejection of registration of the appeal AR :3412020 as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitution al, null, void and consequently direct the VAT Appellate Tribunal to register the appeal without insisting for the deposit as per section 33(2)(i) on such terms and conditions to adjudicate the same in the circumstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the order dt:.14.08.2019 in Appeal no. 513212017-1BV confirming the order of the Respondent No.5 dt.301612017 including stay of recovery proceedings initiated thereto pending disposal of this writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl P.K.KALYANI FOR GOPALA RAO AMANCHARLA V
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. VENKATESWARA RAO(SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAX )FOR GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following: ORDER
T E TIIE HIEF STICE ALB AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JT]STICEC.V.BHA W.P.No.35 837 of 2022
Q@s,(Perthelfor'bb rheChief furrieUjjalBhryat)
Heardlv{s. P.K.Kalyani,learnedcounsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Venl<ateswara Rao, leamedStandingCounsel, C-ommercialTax for the resPondents.
:'.2::
of Rs.1,18,66,81 Z.0O for the assessment period 2013- 1 4 to 2A16-17 . fusailing the aforesaid order dated 14.08.2079, petitioner filed funher appeal before the Appellate Tribunal on 10.02.2020 However, petitroner did not rnake the pre- deposit of 50o/o of the disputed tax as per requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 33 o{ the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 Sriefly 'the VAT Act' hereinafter). Tribunal noted that despite opportunities being granted to make such pre-deposit, petitioner failed to do so and therefore, there was non-compliance to the mandatory n:quirement of law 2.r., proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 33 c,f the VAT Act. C.onsequently, Appellate Tribunal declined to register the appeal.
3
his wife. In the circumstances, leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that this C-oun may invoke the writjurisdiction and waive the requirement of making pre-deposit. She submits that petitioner would furnish bank guarantee for the balance of the pre-deposit amount so as to enable the Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal.
:t4ti
(1) Any dealer objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded:-
(a) b1, any authoriry on appeal under section 31; or &)bl, tlreAdditional Commissioner or Joi"t Comnrissioner or Deputy Commissioner under Sections 2l or 32 or 38; or
(c) by any authoriry following the nriing or order passed nnder section 67; may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal wfuhin sixry dap from the date of sewice of the order or proceeding on hirn
(2) The Appellate Tribunal may wi*rin a funher period of sixcy dap admit the appeal preferred after the period of sixry dap specified in sub-section (1), if it is satisfied that
5
the dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period:
Provided that no appeal agairut the order pxsed under section 3l shall be admitted under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of this Section unless it is accompanied by sadsfactory proof of the payment of fifty percent of the tax, penalty, interest or any other amount as ordered by the Appellate Authority under Section 31.
6
India has to be exercised s.ithin the four comeIs of law and not beycnd the law. fu it is. there is no equiry or place for equitable consideration in matters of revenue and taxation.
As a sequei, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
dismissed.
SD/. N. CHANDRA SEK}iAR RAO ASSlsrANfBt%srRAR //rRUE coPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:20110t2022
ORDER
WP.No.35831 of 2022
1tl r6:
,l;
I ()
I () 06 iAf'l 2023 ()
a{':..' r a f" rl:
DISMISSING OF THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
e*6,,,7,or
2 issues framed by the court
Regardless of financial emergencies, can the High Court waive the statutory mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing a tax appeal?
Did the Appellate Tribunal err in declining to register the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit provision?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. HCI Technocrats
The State of Telangana
Telangana Value Added Appellate Tribunal
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ST)
Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)
Commercial Tax Office
Ujjal Bhuyan
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
