VASANTHI AGENCIES THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATURE Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER II COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, these writ petitions are taken up together and a common order is being passed. The above writ petitions had been filed praying for writs of declaration declaring the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, as amended by the Amendment Act 4 of 2000, insofar as it demands 25 per cent of the difference of the tax assessed by the assessing authority and the tax admitted by the appellants, as a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said provisions, as arbitrary and invalid.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners is that the amendment in question, introduced in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, takes away the discretion vested with the appellate authority concerned to issue appropriate directions, as he thinks fit, with regard to the payment of tax by the appellants, before the disposal of the appeals.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that a number of orders had been passed by this court, in similar matters, dismissing the writ petitions by holding that the amendment in question is valid; One of such orders had been passed by this court, on April 30, 2009, in W.P. Nos. 26676, 43880, 43881 and 3185 of 2009, (Vasanthi Agencies, Through its Authorised Signatory, Palaniappan v. Commercial Tax Officer 17, Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry), based on the decision, Taherali Industries and Project (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer II, 2006 147 STC 249 and in Royal insulation (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2006 147 STC 246.