2019 (7) TMI 1291 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Stay order on part payment / deposit - grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order on stay has not considered the facts of this case - HELD THAT - The impugned order has been passed is on the application for stay. Therefore, the in depth examination of the petitioner's submission was not done at the time of disposing of the stay application. The submissions of the petitioner would be considered in detail at the time of final hearing of the appeal. At this stage, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petitioner is pleading grave hardship in view of the huge demand for no fault on its part. We would request the Tribunal to take up the petitioner's pending appeal for final disposal as early as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. It is made clear that we have not examined the merits of the petitioner's case. This would be done by the Tribunal and any observation made herein should not influence the Tribunal in deciding the appeal. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal on stay application

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's Order: The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 4th December, 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, which directed a stay of the order dated 30th March, 2017 on part payment of tax dues. The petitioner claimed to have been cheated by its selling dealer, resulting in a belief of entitlement to Input Tax Credit. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the defaulting selling dealers, seeking action by the State to recover tax dues. Reference was made to a previous court decision where the Advocate General assured full state machinery invocation against defaulters for recovery and refund to purchasing dealers.

2. Petitioner's Grievance: The petitioner contended that the impugned order did not consider the facts of the case adequately. The petitioner pleaded grave hardship due to the huge demand for no fault on its part. The Court noted that while the assurance of invoking state machinery against defaulters was recorded, the Sales Tax Department retained the option of denying a set off until recovery is made.

3. Judicial View: The High Court observed that the impugned order was passed on the application for stay and did not involve an in-depth examination of the petitioner's submissions. The Court directed that the petitioner's submissions would be considered in detail during the final hearing of the appeal. No fault was found with the Tribunal's order at that stage, and the petitioner's plea of hardship was acknowledged.

4. Direction to Tribunal: The High Court requested the Tribunal to expedite the final disposal of the petitioner's pending appeal within eight weeks. It was clarified that the Court had not examined the merits of the petitioner's case, and any observations made should not influence the Tribunal's decision on the appeal.

5. Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with the directions provided for the Tribunal to proceed with the pending appeal expeditiously. The High Court emphasized that the merits of the case would be assessed by the Tribunal during the final hearing, and the Court's observations should not impact the Tribunal's decision-making process.