2018 (10) TMI 1409 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Pre-deposit - Application for stay of the order - Section 26(6) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - classification of aluminum composite panel - Held that - The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 30th January 2018 is a reasonable order. It is an order which has been passed after taking into consideration, the submissions of the parties and finding that the issue is debatable directed the Petitioners to deposit 25 percent of the duty as a condition precedent to the stay of the order dated 30th January 2018. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30th January 2018 passed by the Tribunal - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal regarding stay application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Classification of 'aluminum composite panel' under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
3. Consideration of decisions by the Tribunal and the Apex Court in similar cases.
4. Direction to deposit 25 percent of the disputed tax amount as a condition for stay.
5. Financial hardship claimed by the Petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's order dated 30th January 2018, which disposed of the Petitioners' application for stay of the order dated 30th March 2017 under Section 26(6) of the MVAT Act. The Tribunal directed the deposit of 25 percent of the disputed tax amount for the period 2011-12. The High Court found the Tribunal's order reasonable, taking into account the debatable nature of the issue and the submissions of both parties.

2. The dispute arose from the classification of 'aluminum composite panel' under the MVAT Act. The Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax classified the product under Schedule Entry E1, rejecting the Petitioners' contention for Schedule Entry C54 classification. The Petitioners appealed to the Tribunal, citing decisions from the Apex Court and the Tribunal itself in similar cases.

3. The Tribunal considered the decisions cited by both parties, including the Apex Court's ruling in Sharp Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. It noted a pending appeal related to Kevin Impex Pvt. Ltd. before the High Court and directed the Petitioners to deposit 25 percent of the confirmed tax amount pending the appeal.

4. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that it was passed after due consideration of the submissions and the debatable nature of the issue. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the Petition. The financial hardship claimed by the Petitioner was not considered a valid ground for intervention, as it was not raised during the initial proceedings.

5. Despite the dismissal of the Petition, the Court clarified that the Petitioner could approach the Tribunal for variation of the order or an expedited appeal hearing. The Court did not grant liberty based on financial hardship but allowed the Petitioner to seek relief through the appropriate channels without hindrance.

This detailed analysis covers the legal issues, the Tribunal's decision-making process, the classification dispute, and the financial hardship claim, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.