DCM LIMITED Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 questions the legality of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Sales Tax, Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') while dealing with the appeals filed by the petitioner against the direction for pro-deposits for entertaining the appeals filed before appellate authority. By order dated 31/01/2001 petitioner was directed by the Tribunal to deposit Rs.2 crores against the demands raised under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short 'the Act') and Rs.75 lakhs against demands raised under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short 'the Central Act'). First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner Sales Tax-I had directed pre-deposit of Rs.3 crores and Rs.75 lakhs respectively for entertaining the first appeals filed relating to assessments for assessment year 1989-90. The total demand raised under the Act was in the neighbourhood of Rs.25.18 crores, while it was Rs. 1.27 crores under the Central Act.Petitioner filed an application for review of the order. Tribunal held that there was no scope for reviewing the order. So far as the tax raised under the Act is concerned, a major portion of it relates to levy of tax on deemed transfer of assets.Tribunal took note of that aspect while directing payment of Rs.2 crores under the Act. It also took note of the financial position of the petitioner as highlighted before it.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, requirement of pre-deposit is unreasonable restriction on the right to file an appeal against an adverse adjudication. In any event, according to him, imposition of stringent conditions makes the right illusory.In the case at hand, it is submitted that the authorities lost sight of the real factual position and acted on surmises and conjectures to levy huge extra demands. Several documents have been pressed into service to show that the assessments were unsustainable.Additionally, it is urged that precarious financial position of the petitioner makes it impossible to comply with the conditions. It is further submitted that on a careful consideration of the relevant materials, the assessments will not stand the test of appeal and, on the contrary, liquidation of the amounts directed to be deposited would cause undue hardship to it. In essence, it is submitted that the discretion of dispensing with pre-deposit has not been judiciously exercised.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the documents and materials placed on record were duly analysed by the assessing officer and the conclusions are in order. Petitioner has not made out a case for being granted stay of realisation of the extra demands. Nowhere before the authorities below any financial stringency was established and for the first time, without any material to support the stand, a contention cannot be raised before this Court. It is pointed out that against the demand of more than Rs.26 crores only Rs.2.75 crores have been directed to be paid.