1994 (10) TMI 277 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against conditional stay order granted by Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Allegation of lack of application of mind by the Tribunal in passing the order.
3. Request for quashing the stay order and interim direction not to collect tax.
4. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding mechanical orders.
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in passing conditional stay orders.
6. Compliance with rules by the Tribunal in determining deposit amounts.
7. Distinguishing the present case from a previous case of mechanical order.
8. Lack of justification for invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
9. Request for modification of the stay order to deduct exempted amount.
10. Dismissal of the writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in exporting cashew kernels, appealed against a conditional stay order granted by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking a quash of the order and an interim direction to halt tax collection for the years 1981 to 1984. The petitioner alleged that the Tribunal passed the order mechanically without considering the filed form 18A declaration, which covered significant amounts. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment to support the contention that the order should be quashed due to lack of proper consideration. However, the Government Pleader argued that the Tribunal's order was not arbitrary or mechanical, and within its jurisdiction, thus not warranting quashing. The Tribunal had the authority to pass a conditional stay order, considering the facts of each case. The order specified the deposit amounts for disputed taxes, varying by year, and required the petitioner to provide security for the stayed amount, in compliance with relevant rules.

The Court examined the Tribunal's order and found it was not blanket or mechanical but a result of proper consideration. Unlike the case cited by the petitioner, where a mechanical order was quashed, in the present matter, the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction or act illegally. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no basis to invoke constitutional jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227. The petitioner's request to modify the stay order by deducting exempted amounts was not entertained in the current proceeding but was advised to be pursued before the Tribunal separately. The Court dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the impugned order did not require interference, upholding the Tribunal's decision.