9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 453 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPart payment as a condition for grant of stay - benefit of C form denied on the ground that the Registration of the buyers (person issuing the C form) in Delhi was canceled - grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2018 of the Tribunal, is a nonspeaking order, inasmuch as, it has not considered the decision of the Delhi High Court in Jain Manufacturing (I) Pvt. Ltd., v/s. Commissioner of Value Added Tax 2016 (6) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT , which according to the Petitioner, covers the entire dispute. Held that - At the stage of consideration of application for stay and directing the pre-deposit, a detailed order may not be necessary. However, the authorities concerned must deal with the decision relied upon by the parties and give a prima facie, view with regard to the applicability of the decision to the facts of the case. Non-consideration of the decision (even prima facie, at the stage of stay) is an order without giving any reason, resulting in a flaw in the decision making process. The order dated 2nd May, 2018 set aside and the Petitioner s application for stay to the Tribunal is restored, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal directing part payment for stay pending appeal under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Analysis: The petitioner, a dealer/trader of cigarettes, challenged an order confirming a demand of ?33.63 Crores by denying benefit of 'C' form due to cancellation of buyer's registration in Delhi and non-issuance of 'C' form in Haryana. The First Appellate Authority granted stay on deposit of ?22.19 lakhs. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the payment condition for stay. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's order was non-speaking as it failed to consider the Delhi High Court's decision in Jain Manufacturing (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Value Added Tax, which held that a 'C' form issued in compliance with statutory provisions cannot be canceled retrospectively. The Tribunal's failure to address this decision was deemed a flaw in the decision-making process. In response, the High Court noted that while a detailed order may not be necessary at the stage of stay application, the authorities must consider decisions relied upon by parties and provide a prima facie view on their applicability to the case. The Court emphasized the importance of considering relevant legal precedents to ensure a fair and reasoned decision-making process. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the application for stay for fresh disposal, instructing the Tribunal to consider the legal precedents cited by the parties. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide the matter on its merits without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment, ensuring that the order is not vitiated by a lack of reasons. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition in the above terms, leaving all contentions open and making no order as to costs.
|
