Spectre of Section 35C(2A) rises again

The second proviso of the new Section 35F makes it clear that the new law on pre-deposit does not apply to the stay applications and appeal proceedings pending before the appellate authorities prior to the enactment of the Finance Act, 2014. So, the logical deduction is that this new section should be applicable to cases which are pending before adjudicating authorities or which were disposed of by the adjudicating authorities on or before August 6, 2014 but were ripe for appeals post August 6, 2014. To this extent the Author has a valid point. But is the new section 35F the God sent cure for clearing pendency of appeals before Tribunals is the question. Does new section 35F adequately cover all the cases. What about issues which are subject to periodical demands by the department and in one or few such cases Tribunal had already granted stay or decided the matter in favor of the assessees but the Tribunal has to deal with appeals which come up subsequently on such matters. Is the assesse required to pay a pre-deposit and file an appeal. How justified is this situation. Will it not be unfair to expect the assesse to pay pre-deposit when he already has a favorable order, whether stay or final order from that very Tribunal for previous periods. If the Tribunal rejects the appeal for nonpayment of predeposit, it is a ripe case for the assesse to agitate before the High Court. High Court will definitely grant relief to assessees in such cases. Section 35F in its current form needs an amendment to provide relief to assessees who already have some beneficial order from Tribunals in their favor in respect of cases which are as a result of periodical demands issued by the department. Otherwise, there is danger of High Courts and as a consequence, Tribunals getting clogged with Writ Petitions or Appeals challenging appeal rejection orders of Tribunals. So, is this a valid cure to the panacea of appeal pendency before Tribunals.

santosh hatwar 21/04/2015