JAGANNATH DUDADHAR Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order of assessment made by the Assessing Authority concerned for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner Sales Tax and prayed for waiver off pre-deposit of the amount of tax determined by the Assessing Authority. That prayer was partly allowed by the Appellate Authority in terms of its order dated 15.05.2002 where under the petitioner was directed to pre-deposit 25% of the central sales tax dues for the year 1999-2000 by 10.06.2002. It is common ground that the total liability which was determined against the petitioner under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act was limited to Rs.13,909/-. This meant that the petitioner was required to pre- deposit a sum of Rs.3477/- only. It so happened that the petitioner did make this pre-deposit but the same was delayed by about 10 days for instead of making the pre-deposit by 10.06.2002, the pre-deposit was made on 20.06.2002. The Appellate Authority appears to have issued notices to the petitioner to show cause why the appeal be not dismissed for non-compliance with the directions regarding pre-deposit. Since the petitioner did not appear to show cause nor was any application for condoning the delay in the making of pre-deposit made, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the directions regarding pre-deposit by its order dated 31.01.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner appealed to the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal who has by the order impugned in this petition affirmed the said order and held that there was indeed a default in the compliance with the order passed by the Appellate Authority which warranted the dismissal of the appeal. The present writ petition assails the correctness of the aforementioned two orders.

(2.) Mr. Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously argued that the authorities below have taken a hyper-technical view of the matter. He urged that the amount of tax liability determined against the petitioner was a paltry sum of Rs.13,909/- only and that although, there was some delay in making of the pre-deposit of 25% of the said amount, the Appellate Authority ought to have condoned the said delay without even insisting upon a formal application in that regard. He submitted that the Tribunal also fell in error in holding that since there was no written request for condonation of delay and since the petitioner had not appeared in response to the notices issued by the Appellate Authority, there was no justification for interference. Mr.Chawla offered to make the deposit of the entire amount determined against the petitioner for the year 1999-2000 and prayed that the intervening delay could be condoned and the appeal directed to be heard and disposed of on merits.

(3.) Mr. Aggarwala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the present was a case of contumacious conduct on the part of the dealer in as much as neither any application for condonation was moved before the appropriate authority nor did the dealer respond to the notices served upon him. He submitted that condonation of delay would be justified only if there was sufficient cause established of the Authority who had fixed the said period and that the order of dismissal of the appeal was in the circumstances perfectly justified.