G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THE only issue required to be determined in this case is as to whether the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad and the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, were justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of assessment passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad (East), even after the Supreme Court had permitted the petitioner to deposit the amount of tax within a period of four weeks.
(2.) ASSESSMENTS for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act were framed qua the petitioner by the Assessing Authority vide its orders dated January 21, 1993 and February 2, 1993, respectively. By a separate order dated April 30, 1993, penalty was imposed on the petitioner under section 29 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The petitioner filed appeals against the orders of assessment and penalty and at the same time made an application before the appellate authority, namely, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), for hearing of the appeals without payment of tax and penalty. Request of the petitioner for grant of stay was rejected by the appellate authority with a direction to deposit the amount of penalty by August 30, 1993. Ultimately the appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the appellate authority on October 4, 1993, solely on account of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount in terms of directions issued on August 5, 1993. In the meantime the petitioner had filed appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal and vide its order dated September 22, 1993, the Tribunal directed that if the entire payment is made by the petitioner in two equal monthly instalments, the appeals shall be heard on merit. Against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed C. W. P. No. 14968 of 1993 before the High Court. This petition was dismissed by the High Court of December 6, 1993. The petitioner then filed a petition for special leave before the apex Court. This petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on February 21, 1994 but at the same time the Supreme Court allowed further four weeks time to the petitioner to deposit the amount. According to the petitioner it had brought to the notice of the Supreme Court the fact that the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeals filed by the petitioner vide order dated October 4, 1993.
(3.) AGAINST the order dated October 4, 1993, the petitioner filed appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, and the same were pending on the date of passing of the order by the honourable Supreme Court. Now these appeals of the petitioner have been dismissed by the Sales Tax Tribunal vide its order dated May 6, 1994. In assailing the order passed by the Tribunal, Shri Agarwal argued that in the face of the order passed by the Supreme Court, it was not open to the Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the appeals filed by the petitioner. Shri Agarwal argued that once the Supreme Court granted further time of four weeks for making payment, the time-limit fixed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Sales Tax Tribunal would be deemed to have been extended and, therefore, it was not open to the Tribunal to hold that the appeals of the petitioner could not be heard on merit. Shri Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate-General, Haryana, could not offer any justification for the view taken by the Tribunal that the appeals filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the appellate authority, the order of the Supreme Court was inconsequential.;