GODREJ PILSBURY LTD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE petitioner was assessed to commercial tax for the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000 by order dated April 17, 2003 of the assessing authority under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the appeal before the first appellate authority, but he dismissed the appeal by order dated September 30, 2004. Against the order of the first appellate authority, the petitioner filed the second appeal before the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board. During the pendency of the second appeal, the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was repealed and in its place the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 came into force with effect from April 1, 2006. Section 53(2) of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 provided for an appeal by the Commissioner or the dealer aggrieved against any order passed by the Appellate Board under the Repealed Act of 1994 to the High Court but Sub -section (5) of Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 further provided that such an appeal filed under Sub -section (2) of Section 53 will not be admitted by the High Court unless 50 per cent of the balance due from the dealer after the order passed by the Appellate Board is paid by him. It is this provision in Sub -section (5) of Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition as discriminatory and ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) MR . Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that all dealers, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Appellate Board under the Repealed Act of 1994, have to be dealt equally but by virtue of the provision of Sub -section (5) of Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 dealers, who have approached the High Court in a reference against the order passed by the Appellate Board, are not required to make any deposit of 50 per cent of the balance due as per the orders of the Appellate Board before the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 came into force on April 1, 2006 but dealers, who want to approach the High Court against the order passed by the Appellate Board after coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 on April 1, 2006, have to deposit 50 per cent of the balance due, as provided in Sub -section (5) of Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid concession made by the respondents in their return, we hold that the provisions of Sub -section (5) of Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 will not apply to appeals made under Section 53(2)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 against the orders of the Appellate Board under the Repealed Act of 1994. Since we have held that Sub -section (5) of Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 does not apply to appeals filed against the orders of the Appellate Board under the Repealed Act of 1994, there will be no discrimination between dealers who have approached the courts in reference under the Repealed Act prior to coming into force the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 with effect from April 1, 2006 and dealers who approach this court in an appeal under Section 53(2) of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 against the orders of the Appellate Board under the Repealed Act, 1994 after coming into force the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002.