M/S R.K Sanitary Through Its Proprietor ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S R.K Sanitary Through Its Proprietor ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                              1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
                                                       &
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                   ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 30812 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           M/S R.K. SANITARY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI
                           VISHAL GUPTA S/O SHRI RAJENDRA GUPTA, AGED
                           ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O NEAR
                           PEEPAL TREE RUI KI MANDI MORENA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI RAKSHIT GUPTA- ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           1.    THE    STATE   OF    MADHYA    PRADESH,
                                 COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY R/O VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX
                                 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, M.G. ROAD INDORE-
                                 452001 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL
                                 TAX   OFFICE, CIRCLE- MORENA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR- ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE)

                                 This petition coming on for hearing this day, Justice Milind Ramesh
                           Phadke passed the following:
                                                               ORDER

Petitioner; a proprietorship firm is a registered dealer under the provisions Signature Not Verified of MP VAT Act, 2002, having TIN No.23235604104. The petitioner is engaged Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 04-05-2024 03:41:00 PM 2 in the business of sale and purchase of PVC pipes and other sanitary goods.

2. The matter relates to Entry Tax for the assessment period from 01/04/2009 - 30/06/2015 (block period). The assessment order was passed on 29/10/2021. Against the order of assessment, the petitioner has preferred an appeal challenging the impugned assessment order dated 29.10.2021 and the said appeal is pending for adjudication before the Appellate Court, but the respondent no.3 without considering the aforesaid facts, has passed the impugned order dated 24.3.2023 and imposed penalty under section 52 of the VAT Act.

3. Petitioner has raised a grievance that since appeal is pending for consideration before the appellate Board therefore, penalty order could not have been passed before finalization of the appeal. According to learned counsel, this preposition is supported by the series of judgment of the Coordinate Benches of this Court. He relies upon the order passed by the coordinate bench in W.P. No.27545/2019 (M/s Pawan Kumar Budamal Vs. State of M.P. and Another) dated 07-02-2020.

4. Shri Khedkar does not dispute the aforesaid preposition.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if petitioner submits certified copy of the order passed today before the appellate Board within ten days from today, then the appellate Board shall decide the pending appeal within a period of 30 days therefrom. In the meantime, the order of penalty dated 29.10.2021 shall be kept in abeyance and shall be subject to final outcome of the aforesaid appeal.

6. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 04-05-2024 03:41:00 PM 3 merits of the case.

Certified copy as per rules.

                              (RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)                      (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                    JUDGE                                       JUDGE
                           Pj'S/-




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 04-05-2024
03:41:00 PM