Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 702 (HP)

Eider Technologies Ltd v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-07-31

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.B.MISRA

body2013
Judgment : R.B. Misra, J. – 1. The writ petitions have been filed with the similar set of prayers and one such prayer in CWP No. 2201 of 2008 reads thus: "(ii) That writ of Certiorari be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by quashing Annexure P-1 by way of said order dated 21.2.2002 the respondent No.4 was pleased to fix liability of tax amounting to Rs.40,16,460/-. Similarly Annexure P-2 dated 7.1.2003 i.e. order passed by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner vide which appeals of the present petitioner were dismissed. Similarly Annexure P-3 i.e. copy of order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeal) dated 6.7.2007 vide which the appeals of the present petitioners were dismissed." 2. The petitioners are only aggrieved that their appeal(s) before the First Appellate Authority and revision was not adjudicated on the merits of the case(s). On the other hand, it has been pointed out that being aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioners preferred first appeal, where as a condition precedent, they were asked to deposit Rs.10 lacs as against the total liability of Rs.40 lacs for entertaining the appeal. For non-depositing that amount for registering the appeal, the appeal was not registered by the First Appellate Authority and the submission of the petitioner(s) was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the appeal(s), that too was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred and relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer Rourkela I Circle and others (2008) 9 SCC 407 and has submitted that in view of the observations made therein, the statutory appeal(s) was to be only disposed of considering the merits of the case. The facts and circumstances of the case of Steel Authority of India (supra), were different and distinguishable as in that case interim order was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as a result of which, the first Appellate Authority was obliged to adjudicate the appeal on merits. In the present case in hand, the petitioners have not deposited the amount of pre- condition for registering the first appeal even. Therefore, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra) shall have to be understood in the facts and circumstances of that case only. In the present case in hand, the petitioners have not deposited the amount of pre- condition for registering the first appeal even. Therefore, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra) shall have to be understood in the facts and circumstances of that case only. In the present case, no case is made out requiring indulgence and invoking our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore and in our considered view, no fault could be found with the impugned judgments and the views taken by the quasi-judicial Authorities. The writ petitions are devoid of merits, as such, petitions are accordingly dismissed. 3. No argument has been pressed before us about the sick industry, as the reference made by the petitioners has already been dismissed against which petitioners have gone into writ petition before the Delhi High Court.