SC disposes appeal challenging constitutional validity of pre-deposit under the provisions of TNVAT Act

SC disposes appeal challenging constitutional validity of pre-deposit under the provisions of TNVAT Act The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/S. V.…

SC disposes appeal challenging constitutional validity of pre-deposit under the provisions of TNVAT Act
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/S. V.V.V. And Sons Edible Oil Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3964 of 2020 dated December 04, 2020] disposed of the appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, wherein, the Assessee had challenged the constitutional validity of pre-deposit contained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (“TNVAT Act”) and held that, since the matter is still at the first appellate stage, the Appellant would, therefore, be obliged to deposit 25% of the demanded sum.
Facts:-
This appeal filed by M/S. V.V.V. And Sons Edible Oil Ltd. (“Assessee/Appellant”) challenges the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 21856 of 2016 dated February 26, 2020.
The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Appellant challenging the validity of second proviso to Section 51(1) of the TNVAT Act and second proviso to Section 58(1) of the TNVAT Act. Under Section 51(1) of the TNVAT Act, the Appellant at the first appellate stage is obliged to deposit 25% of the difference in the amount of tax assessed by the assessing authority and the tax admitted by the Appellant whereas under Section 58(1) of the TNVAT Act, the Appellant at the second appellate stage is required to deposit the sum ordered by the appellate authority. The constitutional validity of these provisions were under challenge in the aforesaid writ petition and the challenge having been negatived, this appeal has been preferred.
Issue:-
Constitutional validity of pre-deposit contained under second proviso to Section 51(1) of the TNVAT Act and second proviso to Section 58(1) of the TNVAT Act.
Held:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3964 of 2020 dated December 04, 2020 held as under:
- Noted that the matter insofar as the case of the present Appellant is concerned, is still at the first appellate stage.
- Held that, in terms of second proviso to Section 51(1) of the Act, the Appellant would, therefore, be obliged to deposit 25% of the demanded sum.
- Observed that, a sum of Rs. 13 crores has already been deposited by the Appellant before the authorities in question vide order dated, September 04, 2020 by this court, which satisfies the requirements of deposit of 25% of the sum.
- Stated that, since on facts, the matter arises from the first appellate stage, the court does not deem it appropriate at this stage to consider that in case the Appellant does not succeed at the first appellate stage, the question may still arise about the liability and how much money should be deposited at the second appellate stage. In case, the occasion to advance the submissions with regard to the validity of second proviso to Section 58(1) of the TNVAT Act arises, the Appellant shall be at liberty to take appropriate measures.
- Such part of tax demanded in the order that the taxpayer admits being liable for; and
- 10% of the remaining part of tax demanded in the order as a pre-deposit amount or Rs. 25 crores (i.e., totaling to INR 50 crores for CGST and SGST/UTGST or IGST), whichever is less.
- Such part of tax demanded in the order that he admits being liable for; and
- 20% of the remaining part of tax demanded in the order as a pre-deposit amount or Rs. 50 crores (i.e., totaling to INR 100 crores for CGST and SGST/UTGST or IGST), whichever is less, in addition to what was deposited before the first appellate authority.
- under sub-section (3) of section 51 or under sub-section (3) of section 52 shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax as ordered by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner or by the Appellate Joint Commissioner, as the case may be;
- under sub-section (1) of section 53, unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax admitted by the appellant to be due or of such instalments thereof as might have become payable, as the case may be, and twenty-five per cent of the difference of the tax ordered by the Joint Commissioner under section 53 and the tax admitted by the appellant:
About Author

A2ZBimal Jain
Chartered Accountant
CA Bimal Jain is a Member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since May 1994 and Member of Institute of Company Secretaries of India since December 2006 along with a Bachelors degree in Law. Also, he is a Qualified SAP - FI/CO Consultant and has more than 21 years of experience in Indirect Taxation and specializes in all aspects of Service Tax, Value Added Tax (VAT)/ Central Sales Tax (CST), Central Excise, Customs, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Export Oriented Unit (EOU), Export-Import Laws and well acquainted with the concept and impact of way forward Goods and Services tax (GST).
A2Z Taxcorp LLP
Delhi, Delhi, India
468My Recent Articles
- Actions taken by the department during enquiry need not necessarily be termed as harassment
- Who are liable to generate e-invoice w.e.f October 1, 2022
- Personal penalty cannot be imposed on the Chairman of the Company for failure in ensuring proper accounting of the goods
- Stayed the order of cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee for continuing the trading activities
- Can CA be arrested- Section 69 vs Section 132 of the CGST Act
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Tags
No tags yet.
Recent Posts

All Posts

Tags
No tags yet.







