M/S National Tyre House, Batamaloo vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (State Taxes Department)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's prayer to quash the assessment order dated 17.03.2020 was misconceived, as the petitioner had an effective alternate remedy by filing an appeal, which they had indeed done. Regarding the delay in deciding the appeal, the Court found no merit in stopping the respondents from proceeding. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals Taxation, Srinagar, to consider and decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, noting that it would be open for the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with mandatory conditions. The Court also stated it found no good reason to stop the respondents from submitting a report regarding the closed business. The ratio decidendi is that a party with an alternate remedy must pursue it, and appellate authorities can proceed to dispose of appeals if mandatory conditions are not met.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S National Tyre House, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals Taxation, Srinagar (Respondent No. 2) to decide their appeal against an assessment order dated 17.03.2020. The petitioner also sought to quash this assessment order for the assessment year 2016-17, passed under the Jammu and Kashmir VAT Act, and requested spot verification of their business which had closed in 2014-15. The respondents stated that the appeal was not being decided because the petitioner had not deposited 20% of the disputed tax amount, a mandatory condition for hearing the appeal. The petitioner's application to waive this condition had already been rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy against the assessment order dated 17.03.2020, considering they have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals Taxation, Srinagar? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals Taxation, Srinagar, is obligated to decide the petitioner's appeal despite the petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory condition of depositing 20% of the disputed tax amount? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and have their appeal decided. They also requested spot verification of their closed business. Revenue's arguments: The appeal was not being decided due to the petitioner's failure to deposit 20% of the disputed tax amount, which is a prerequisite for hearing the appeal. The petitioner's application to waive this condition was already rejected.