R S INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for modification of the order dated November 2, 1999 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (for short, "the Tribunal") and for issuance of mandamus to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad (respondent No.3) to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 39 (1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") without insisting on pre-deposit of tax.

(2.) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of paraffin wax. Vide orders dated January 29, 1999 and April 2, 1999, the Excise and Taxation Officer (Enforcement)-cum-Assessing Authority created an additional demand of Rs.11,13,372 against the petitioner towards the tax and penalty, who challenged the same by filing an appeal under section 39 (1) of the Act along with an application for exemption from payment of tax in terms of section 39 (5 ). By an order dated September 6, 1999, respondent No.3 partly accepted the petitioner's request for hearing the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit of tax subject to the condition of payment of Rs.2,78,343 representing 25 per cent of the disputed demand in two monthly instalments and furnishing of surety for the balance amount of Rs.8,35,029 to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority. This did not satisfy the petitioner and, therefore, it filed an appeal under section 39 (2) of the Act before the Tribunal with the prayer for grant of total exemption from payment of tax. By an order dated November 2, 1999, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the direction to the appellant (petitioner herein) to pay rupees one lakh out of Rs.2,78,343 and furnish surety bond for the balance amount as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner has now invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondent No.3 to hear the appeal without pre-deposit of the amount specified in the order of the Tribunal. It has averred that the orders passed by respondent No.3 and the Tribunal are vitiated by an error of law because neither of them has properly considered its plea of financial weakness.