BABU Vs. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be considered in this Writ Petition is whether the assessee, who is challenging an order passed under S. 17D of the K.G.S.T. Act by way of appeal, is liable to deposit the entire arrears due in respect of the said assessment year i.e., by way of tax, interest etc., by virtue of sub-s.(5) of S. 17D or will it be enough, if the tax portion alone is satisfied, so as to maintain the appeal under S. 39 of the K.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner was the Managing Partner of a firm, which was being run under the name and style as M/s. Best Traders, Kalpetta. The said firm was closed down because of the adverse circumstances in the year 2005. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, the assessment proceedings came to be finalised by resorting to the course and procedure under S. 17D of the K.G.S.T. Act, leading to Ext. P1 assessment order, fixing the tax liability as Rs. 2,55,111/- and showing the interest due as Rs. 1,53,067/-.

(2.) Pursuant to Ext. P1 order, the petitioner was served with Ext. P2 demand notice, directing to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,55,111/- towards 'tax payable' for the assessment year 2004-05 and a separate notice (Ext. P3) in respect of the interest portion coming to Rs. 1,53,067/-. According to the petitioner, he has satisfied the tax amount and something more, as borne by Ext. P4 proceedings dated 28.1.2012 issued by the revenue authorities. After satisfying the tax as above, the petitioner preferred Ext. P5 appeal before the Tribunal, also giving the split up figures under Column No. 8, showing the liability. However, the appeal was noted as defective and the petitioner was let known vide Ext. P6 notice dated 9.3.2012, that the proof produced by the petitioner, i.e., the photocopies of the challan receipts for the remittance of tax due before the revenue authorities, was insufficient and the petitioner was directed to produce certificate issued from the concerned Commercial Tax Officer to the effect that the entire arrears have been paid for the year 2004-05, so as to have compliance of the requirements under S. 17D (5) and to have the appeal entertained on merits, which made the petitioner to approach this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the course and proceedings pursued by the Tribunal, noting the appeal as defective, is not correct or proper and that the statutory prescription requires the petitioner to satisfy only the 'tax' and not interest or any other amount.