COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus ATMA RAM MISRA ETC.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1031 · Decided: 19-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW 
v. 
ATMA RAM MISRA ETC. 
MARCH 19, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
U. P. Sales Tax Act: Section 9-Appeal against assessment-
Whetha obligatory on assessee to pay admitted tax. 
· 
The respondents in each of these three cases was subjected to 
assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In each of these cases the 
assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority and moved 
an ;ipplication for the waiver of any deposit of the tax which was neces-
sary before the appeal could be entertained. The first appellate autho-
rity in two of the cases dismissed the application and in the third directed 
the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within ten days from the 
date of the order. Dis-satisfied with the orders of the first appellate 
authority each of the assessees preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The 
Tribunal in all the three cases directed the assessee to pay 10% of the 
assessed tax before the appeal could be entertained. Each of the assessees 
preferred a revision petition before the High Court. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The High Court held that the condition requiring deposit of tax 
E 
was not applicable in the instant case of M/s Atma Ram Misra as no 
returns at all had been filed by the assessee for the relevant assessment 
year and no turnover stood admitted by the assessee at any stage of the 
assessment proceedings which was followed in the other two cases with 
the result that the first appellate authority was held bound to em.<tain 
the appeals of the assessee without calling upon it for deposit of any 
F 
portion of tax. The department has preferred these appeals by special 
leave against the decision of the single judge of the High Court in all the 
three cases. 
This Court while dismissing the appeals made it clear that it did 
not agree with the High Court's interpretation of the statutory provi-
G 
sions and, 
--~ 
HELD: The provision in question makes two relaxations. It does 
not make it obligatory ou the assessee to deposit the entire amount of 
assessed tax. It restricts the deposit to 20% of the assessed tax. [1039C] 
1031 
H 
A 
B 
c 
-
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 1 S.C.R. 
It empowers the appellate authority to waive or relax the require-
ments of clause (b). [ l039C] 
The deposit contemplated under clause (b) also covers cases where 
no returns have been filed and no admission of any turnover has come 
from the assessee. [ l039E] 
This, however, does not in any way affect the power of the appel-
late authority to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited, depending 
on the circumstances of each case, under the proviso to the above sub-
section. [1039G] 
Vishamber Nath v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., [1979] 
U.P.T.C. 1276. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1465 
of 1990. etc. etc. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.1987 & 27.2.1989 of 
the Allahabad High Court in S.T.R. Nos. 522/86, 202/89 & 203 of 
1989. 
S.C. Manchanda and A.K. Srivastava for the Appellant. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. These three Special Leave Petitions can 
be disposed of together as they involve a common point. Notices of 
these petitions have been duly sent but there is no appearance on 
behalf of the respondents. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner 
F 
we grant leave and also proceed to dispose of the appeals. 
The respondents in each of these cases was subjected ?e assess-
ment under the U .P. Sales Tax Act. The assessment years are different 
for the three cases being assessment years 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1982-
83 respectively but this does not make any material difference. In each 
c of the cases, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate 
authority and, along with the appeal, moved an application praying for 
the waiver of any deposit of tax which was necessary before the appeal 
could be entertained. But the first appellate authority, in two of the 
cases, dismissed the application. Jn the third he directed the assessee 
to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within ten days from the date of the 
H 
order. Dis-satisfied with the orders of the first appellate authority, 
r 
C.S.T. v. A.P. MISRA [RANGANATHAN, J.J 
1033 
each of the assessees preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tri-
bunal, in all the three cases, directed the assessee to pay 10% of the 
assessed tax before the appeal could be entertained. 
Each of the assessees preferred a revision petition before th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.