Judgment
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: October 17, 2014 + ST.APPL. 56/2014 ROSA TRADERS PVT. LTD. Through ..... Petitioner Mr.A.K.Babbar,Advocate with Mr.Surinder Kumar, Advocate versus COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX, DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Vivek Kumar Tandon, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J (ORAL) Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are inclined to frame the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax was justified and right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant Rosa Traders Pvt. Ltd. for failure to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2 lakhs?. ”
2. With the consent of the parties, we take up the appeal for hearing as only a short issue arises for consideration.
3. The appellant herein had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax. The appeal pertained to the taxable period 1995-96. Apparently, there have been several rounds of appeals and remand before the present appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. By order dated 12.06.2007 of the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs as a precondition for hearing and deciding the appeal on merits. The said pre-condition imposed has been upheld by the High Court. In the meanwhile, the appellant deposited Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- on 28.09.2007 and 30.10.2007, respectively. Further, payments of Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- were made on 26.07.2010 & 29.07.2010 and 16.11.2010, respectively. However, balance payment of Rs. 60,000/- remained outstanding. In the meanwhile, the appeal itself was listed before the Appellate Tribunal on 21.02.2014 to be dismissed under Section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Act, 1975. Thereupon, the appellant deposited Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on 16.03.2014 and 21.03.2014 to make up for the balance amount and reach the figure of Rs. 2 lakhs. Review application was thereafter filed, but stands dismissed.
5. It is pleaded and stated in the present appeal that the appellant has closed and stopped their business activities and the person in charge is an old man more than 85 years of age. The lapse and default on the part of the appellant, because of the delay in depositing Rs. 2 lakhs is accepted. It is pointed out that the total quantum of additions, which were subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Tribunal is Rs.39,40,971/-. It is submitted that in case the appeal is not heard and decided on merits, the appellant will be burdened with the huge liability, which, keeping in view the old age and financial position, the company may not be able to meet and the person in charge would face penurious situation. Noticing these facts while issuing notice vide order dated 09.09.2014, we had asked the appellant, whether they could deposit a further amount. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that they would deposit another amount of Rs. 50,000/- and a challan would be produced. Today, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has produced before us photocopy of the two challans dated 17.09.2014 and 19.09.2014 of Rs. 25,000/each, totalling to Rs. 50,000/-, whereby the said amount stands deposited. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and also noticing the advanced age of the person in charge, we are inclined to allow the appeal and to answer the question of law in favour of the appellant. The question of law is accordingly decided. The appeal is restored to be decided on merits by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax. To cut short the delay, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax on 26.11.2014, when a date of hearing will be fixed. Order dasti. SANJIV KHANNA, J V. KAMESWAR RAO, J OCTOBER17 2014/akb