9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 133 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification of order - Extension of time - Pre deposit ordered - Held that - Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed only to seek such sympathetic and equitable reliefs. We do not think that the condition imposed is either unfair or in any way unreasonable and unjust. Therefore the rejection of the Application by the impugned order dated 2nd December 2014 need not be interfered with. - Upon taking instructions from the representative of the Petitioner present in Court Mr. Patkar states that the sum as directed in the original order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai would be deposited or payment made on or before 31st March 2015. Purely to accommodate the Petitioners and in the light of their financial difficulties we accept this statement of Shri Patkar made on instructions. If the amount directed by the Tribunal is deposited within this reasonable time the Tribunal shall consider the Appeal of the Petitioners on merits and decided it in accordance with law. Noncompliance with our direction shall visit the Petitioners with all consequences permitted in law. - Petition disposed of.
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal rejecting Misc. Application Nos.277 of 2014 and 278 of 2014 seeking to rectify the main order in VAT Appeals No.157 and 158 of 2014. Analysis: The Writ Petition challenged the orders passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal rejecting the Misc. Applications seeking to rectify the main order in VAT Appeals. The Applications were more about seeking an extension of time rather than rectifying the original order. The Tribunal had disposed of the VAT Appeals conditionally, requiring the Petitioners to deposit a specific sum by a certain date to proceed with their Appeal on merits. The Petitioners requested an extension of time and permission to deposit the sum in installments due to financial difficulties. The High Court, after hearing the arguments and examining the orders, held that filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India solely for seeking sympathetic or equitable reliefs was not appropriate. The Court found the condition imposed by the Tribunal to be fair and reasonable, and thus upheld the rejection of the Application by the impugned order. However, considering the financial difficulties of the Petitioners, the Court allowed an extension for depositing the directed amount by a specified date. The Court warned that non-compliance would result in consequences as permitted by law and emphasized that no further extensions would be granted. In conclusion, the Petition was disposed of with the condition that the directed amount must be deposited within the specified reasonable time for the Tribunal to consider the Appeal on merits. The Court made it clear that no additional extensions would be provided and no costs were awarded in this matter.
|
