ASIAN GANITO INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for final disposal of the petition. The petitioners have made multiple prayers. Several prayers came to be added after the petition was filed which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, was necessary as certain developments had taken place subsequently. Since the departmental appeal proceedings are pending, we would not deal with all these prayers, instead, we would address as to what should be done in the interregnum till the appellate authority decides the appeal already instituted by the petitioners. The central controversy is the demand raised by the respondents against the petitioners of value added tax under a provisional assessment. The demand with interest and penalty touches Rs. 3 crores (rounded off).

(2.) The petitioners are in the business of manufacturing vitrified and ceramic tiles. They have been paying value added tax under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act ("the VAT Act", for short) since several years. On certain contentious issues, the adjudicating authority passed its provisional assessment order on August 21, 2012 under section 32 of the VAT Act. Against such an order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on October 3, 2012 and such appeal is pending. Alongwith such appeal, the petitioners have also prayed for waiver of pre-deposit in terms of section 73(4) of the VAT Act.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners and which is not seriously disputed by the respondents that during the period between October 11, 2011 to January 6, 2012, the petitioners were forced to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.83 crores, out of which, a sum of Rs. 1.28 crores represented the demand of the Department relatable to the provisional order of assessment later on framed by the adjudicating authority. Be that as it may, it is not in serious dispute that against such claim based on the provisional assessment of Rs. 3 crores, a sum of Rs. 1.28 crores was already recovered earlier. While the petitioners' appeal with stay application was still pending, the Department continued with the recovery proceedings instituted vide notice dated November 27, 2012. Following steps were taken by the Department in furtherance of such recovery proceedings: