2018 (11) TMI 146 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand of pre-deposit - stay of order dated 15th March, 2017 - denial of appellant claim of input tax credit - Held that - The petitioner did not comply with the directions of the Tribunal nor did the petitioner challenge it. Thereafter on 15th March, 2017 an order was passed by the First Appellate Authority confirming the assessment order dated 30th March, 2013. The same has now been challenged before the Tribunal and the stay of the First Appellate order (which upheld the order in original) is sought by the petitioner. This without any explanation, as to why the petitioner did not comply with the earlier orders of the Tribunal in respect of stay of the assessment order passed by the Tribunal. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles it to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal under MVAT Act - Stay of assessment order - Compliance with Tribunal's directions - Financial difficulty of petitioner - Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenges the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal passed under Section 26(b) of the MVAT Act, directing stay of an assessment order upon depositing a specific amount. The Tribunal had earlier directed the petitioner to deposit a sum for stay of the assessment order, which was not complied with. Subsequently, the assessment order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) on 15th March, 2017.

2. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should have considered the submission on merits and not dismissed it solely based on non-compliance with the earlier order. The petitioner also claimed financial difficulty, but no evidence was presented to support this claim before the Tribunal. The petitioner's conduct in not complying with the Tribunal's directions was a crucial factor in the decision-making process.

3. The High Court emphasized the importance of the petitioner's conduct while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions previously and did not challenge it. The sanctity of the Tribunal's orders must be respected unless stayed by a higher forum, and proceedings should not be initiated without intent to comply.

4. The Court held that the petitioner's conduct disentitled them to relief under Article 226. The request for an extension of time to deposit the amount directed by the Tribunal was denied. However, the Court clarified that if the petitioner complies with the Tribunal's order, they can approach the Tribunal for an extension, which would be considered on its own merits.

5. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court based on the petitioner's conduct and non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions. The decision highlighted the significance of following Tribunal orders and the need for petitioners to act in good faith during legal proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Court's reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the writ petition.