2011 (9) TMI 915 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Trade tax revisions against a common order dated July 20, 2011; Prima facie case and financial hardship assessment for granting stay; Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment in K. Raheja Development Corporation case; Applicability of Division Bench judgments; Grant of interim stay; Revisional jurisdiction of the court; Deposit requirements for disputed amount.

Analysis:
The High Court heard six trade tax revisions against a common order and decided to address all issues in a single judgment due to identical facts and legal matters. The Tribunal based its decision on the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Raheja Development Corporation case, allowing 80% stay of the disputed amount. However, the counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to provide reasons for the decision, citing precedents like Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd. case. The Division Bench judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court's doubts in Larsen & Toubro Limited case were also referenced.

The court acknowledged the continued validity of the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Raheja Development Corporation case, despite doubts expressed by another Division Bench. It emphasized that the judgment remains binding unless overruled by a Larger Bench. Regarding the prima facie case, the court found the assessee's case not exceptionally strong. The comparison with Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. case was left for the first appellate authority to examine. The interim order from a Division Bench was noted not to create a binding precedent.

In assessing the grant of interim orders, the court highlighted the need to consider both the prima facie case and the financial hardship faced by the assessee. While the legal justification for the tax liability determination was upheld, the lack of comprehensive financial documentation from the assessee impacted the assessment of financial hardship. Consequently, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

However, in light of the Supreme Court's reference to the legality of the K. Raheja Development Corporation judgment, the court modified the order to require a 20% deposit of the disputed amount within two weeks, split between cash and alternative security. Failure to comply would result in the loss of benefits. Ultimately, all trade tax revisions were disposed of accordingly, maintaining the Tribunal's decision with the specified modification.