Skip to content


Caterers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Sales Tax
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.W. No. 1366 of 1984
Judge
Reported in[1986]61STC22(Delhi)
ActsDelhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 - Sections 43(5)
AppellantCaterers
RespondentDeputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
Excerpt:
- .....of hearing of the appeal before the deputy commissioner of sales tax. under section 43(5) of the delhi sales tax act, 1975, a stay of the collection can be ordered to some extent as other wise the appeal cannot be heard. the discretion with the appellate authority is either to insist on the entire sales tax amount being paid as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal, or to grant partial stay either on payment of part of the tax or furnishing security or on other terms as set out in the section. an unconditional stay is not visualised by section 43(5). in the circumstances of this case, because the petitioner has not collected any tax, we think that the furnishing of a security should be sufficient, and the appeal should be heard on the furnishing of that security. we.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

We have heard this writ petition after issue of a show cause notice. The interim order was that as the sales tax had not been collected from the customers on the assumption that no sales tax was to be collected, we would stay the collection of the tax demand on the furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the Sales Tax Officer. That security has been furnished. This appeal is only concerned with the question of hearing of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Under section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, a stay of the collection can be ordered to some extent as other wise the appeal cannot be heard. The discretion with the appellate authority is either to insist on the entire sales tax amount being paid as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal, or to grant partial stay either on payment of part of the tax or furnishing security or on other terms as set out in the section. An unconditional stay is not visualised by section 43(5). In the circumstances of this case, because the petitioner has not collected any tax, we think that the furnishing of a security should be sufficient, and the appeal should be heard on the furnishing of that security. We would, thereforee, direct the appeal to be heard on merits but after the appeal is disposed of the security will be available for realisation of the tax amount. Of course, the tax amount can also be realised from the petitioner. This order disposes of the petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //