The Kerala High Court enhanced the number of instalments to make payment in the matter of confirmation of differential tax demand on not being entitled to concessional rate of tax against ‘C’ Forms.
The appellant, Jasmine Kochunni, who is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, being aggrieved by an assessment order that confirmed a differential tax demand against her on the ground that she was not entitled to the concessional rate of tax against ‘C’ Forms, approached the Appellate Authority against the said assessment order.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was however rejected by the First Appellate Authority and this led to the appellant approaching the Appellate Tribunal through a Second Appeal. In the stay application filed along with the appeal, while the appellant sought for a complete stay of recovery of the confirmed demand pending disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal granted only a conditional stay that required the appellant to pay 20% of the existing demand. It was impugning the said conditional stay order that the appellant approached the Single Judge through the writ petition aforementioned.
The Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that there were no vitiating circumstances that warranted an interference with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. He however took note of the request of the learned counsel for the appellant for the grant of instalments and, while dismissing the writ petition, permitted the appellant to pay the amounts directed to be paid by the Tribunal in three equal monthly instalments commencing from 11.9.2023.
A Division Bench comprising Dr Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that “Taking note of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal that required the appellant to pay 20% of the disputed demand as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the balance amounts pending disposal of the Second Appeal, we merely modify the judgment of the Single Judge to increase the number of instalments to six equated successive monthly instalments instead of the three instalments granted by the learned Single Judge.”
“We uphold the judgment of the Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal. We make it clear that if the appellant pays the amount, directed to be paid by the Tribunal in the order impugned in the writ petition, in six equal and successive monthly instalments commencing from 01.10.2023, then the said payment shall be treated as in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in the order aforementioned, and the Tribunal shall thereafter proceed to hear the appeal on merits” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
