LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-38

DEEPAK CARRIER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 22, 2003
DEEPAK CARRIER Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for quashing order dated December 8, 1999 (annexure P.1) passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak (respondent No. 3) and orders dated September 12, 2001 (annexure P.3) and September 13, 2002 (annexure P.5) passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana.

(2.) The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act"). By an order dated March 30, 1999, the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Gurgaon (E), created a demand of Rs. 8,55,063 against the petitioner for the period from August 15, 1995 to March 31, 1996. The petitioner challenged the demand by filing an appeal under Section 39 of the Act. It also applied for waiver of requirement of depositing the disputed amount as a condition precedent to the entertaining of appeal. Vide order dated December 8, 1999, respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to pay the amount of additional demand in six monthly instalments starting from October, 1999 and furnish surety bonds for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority. The petitioner did not deposit the amount in terms of the directions given by respondent No. 3. Therefore, vide order dated December 8, 1999 (annexure P.1), respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal. The Sales Tax Tribunal confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 3 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing that it had neither complied with the order passed by respondent No. 3 nor challenged the same. Review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sales Tax Tribunal by recording the following order :

(3.) Shri Jitender Dhanda argued that even though the petitioner had not made deposit in terms of order dated December 8, 1999, respondent No. 3 should have given it an opportunity of hearing before ordering dismissal of the appeal. He further argued that non-deposit of the amount of additional demand did not justify dismissal of the appeal.