2016 (10) TMI 116 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand of MVAT dues - maintainability - alternative remedy of appeal - section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Held that - petitioner can appeal to Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, then, the Tribunal shall not insist on an application seeking condonation of delay being filed, but would proceed on the assumption that the Revenue does not object to the appeal on the ground of delay nor seek its dismissal only on that ground. It should then decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. No opinion expressed on the rival contentions and it will be entirely for the parties to raise them and the Tribunal to deal with them in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with a further direction that the petitioner shall not have to seek a stay of the recovery of the amount demanded as MVAT dues if it is secured substantially by a bank guarantee as ordered by this Court which shall be kept alive till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal and for a period of six weeks thereafter. Petition disposed off - matter remanded.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under MVAT Act, 2002 - Dismissal of appeal against assessment - Legal contentions ignored - Order short and cryptic - Remedy of appeal to Sales Tax Tribunal - Agreement for appeal filing - Tribunal to decide on substantive legal issues - No remand to other authority - Stay of recovery with bank guarantee - Tribunal to dispose of appeal by December 2016.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, dismissing their appeal against an assessment raising MVAT dues. The petitioner contended that the order ignored crucial legal contentions and failed to consider a previous order passed in their favor by the High Court. The respondent acknowledged that the impugned order was short and unreasoned but argued that the petitioner could appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal instead of filing a writ petition. Both parties agreed that the petitioner could appeal to the Tribunal within three weeks, and the Tribunal should address substantive legal issues without remanding the matter.

The High Court directed that if the appeal is filed within three weeks, the Tribunal should not insist on a condonation of delay. However, if the appeal is filed beyond that period, the petitioner must provide sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal was instructed to decide all issues raised without remanding the matter to any other authority. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the contentions raised, leaving it to the parties and the Tribunal to address them in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted a stay of recovery if they secured the MVAT dues with a bank guarantee until the appeal's disposal and for six weeks thereafter.

Given the issue's importance, the Tribunal was directed to expedite the appeal's disposal, ensuring a decision by December 2016. The First Appellate Authority was instructed to await the Tribunal's decision for successive years' assessment orders related to the petitioner's appeals, preventing adjudication until the Tribunal's decision. However, the Assessing Officer could pass assessment orders for successive years in accordance with the law during this period.