TEA LAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the limited controversy involved in these appeals, issue notice to the sole respondent, returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Government Pleader Shri Jaimin Gandhi waived service of notice for admission on behalf of the respondent. He is supplied with an advance copy. In these appeals, the common appellant has challenged common orders dated June 14, 2013, July 15, 2013 and August 16, 2013 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal", for short). Issue pertains to requirement of pre-deposit. Against the assessment orders passed for three separate assessment periods, the appellant has preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority demanded 25 per cent of the tax by way of pre-deposit. Against such order, the appellant preferred Second Appeal Nos. 224 of 2013 to 226 of 2013 before the Tribunal. On June 14, 2013, the Tribunal passed the following order:

(2.) The appellant did not deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal in the said order. On July 15, 2013 before the Tribunal, the appellant requested that the requirement of pre-deposit be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent and he may be granted six equal monthly installments. The Tribunal rejected the requests and posted the appeals for further hearing on August 16, 2013.

(3.) In its order dated June 14, 2013, the Tribunal had granted the facility of adjustment of refund payable to the appellant towards the pre-deposit requirement. On August 16, 2013, the Tribunal noted the appellant's contention that the assessing officer had previously passed orders in the earlier assessments, but such orders were cancelled and directions were given for passing fresh orders. However, no fresh orders are passed. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal noted that the appellant cannot seek adjustment of the refund since no order regarding refund has been passed. Be that as it may, on August 16, 2013, the Tribunal rejected the appeals since the requirement of pre-deposit was not fulfilled. These orders are in challenge before us.