9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 313 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDispense with the requirement of depositing the tax into Government Treasury in accordance with Section 26(6B) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Held that - The mandate of Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act is very clear. It does not provide for any exception in complying with the requirement of pre-deposit for the purpose of filing an appeal. The difficulty of the petitioner in depositing the amounts while filing the appeal will not exempt them from the requirement of Section 26(6B) of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 28th February, 2018 of the Tribunal so as to warrant any interference by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it may be pointed out that when the petitioner is able to satisfy with the requirement of Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act, it could file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay to the Tribunal. In terms of Section 81 of the MVAT Act, it would be open to the Tribunal to consider the petitioner s application for condonation of delay on its own merits after the petitioner filed an appeal along with evidence of the requisite deposit in terms of Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal rejecting application to dispense with depositing tax under Section 26(6B) of MVAT Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, which rejected their application to dispense with the requirement of depositing tax under Section 26(6B) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act). The Tribunal's decision was based on the statutory provision of Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act, which mandates that no appeal can be filed before the Tribunal without proof of payment of the specified amounts. The petitioner had not deposited any amount out of the total tax dues of ?66.94 lakhs, as required by the Act. The provision of Section 26(6B) acts as a statutory bar preventing an assessee from filing an appeal without complying with the payment requirements. 2. The petitioner, citing financial difficulties and frozen/seized bank accounts, sought an extension of 8 weeks to deposit the required amount under Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act. However, the Court held that the statutory provision is clear and does not provide exceptions for non-compliance based on financial constraints. The Court found no fault with the Tribunal's order, as the petitioner's inability to deposit the amount did not exempt them from the legal requirement. 3. The Court highlighted that once the petitioner fulfills the deposit requirement under Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act, they can file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. Section 81 of the MVAT Act allows the Tribunal to consider such applications on their merits. If the Tribunal grants condonation of delay, it will proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits. The Court emphasized that no interference was warranted at the current stage, and thus dismissed the petition without any costs. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the statutory requirement of depositing tax under Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act for filing an appeal before the Tribunal, emphasizing that financial difficulties do not exempt an assessee from compliance. The Court also clarifies the process for filing an appeal with condonation of delay once the deposit requirement is met, leaving the door open for the petitioner to pursue their appeal in the future.
|
