2021 (6) TMI 332 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Vires of Rule 6 (1 B) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - tenure of two years for members of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal - HELD THAT - Respondent to file their reply on or before 12.02.2021 with copy to other side. Rejoinder if any, to be filed on or before 17.02.2021 with copy to other side. Matter to appear on board on 22.02.2021.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Rule 6 (1 B) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 regarding tenure of members of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal contrary to Supreme Court directions. Challenge to other provisions of the said Rules. Appointment of present members for a tenure of two years only.

Analysis:
The Petitioner challenged Rule 6 (1 B) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, stipulating a two-year tenure for members of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, contrary to Supreme Court directions in Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association. The Petitioner also contested other provisions of the Rules. The Apex Court's judgment emphasized a minimum term of five years for Tribunal members, highlighting the importance of tenure in ensuring efficiency and independence. The Court directed the modification of the tenure in the 2020 Rules to five years for Chairman, Vice Chairman, and members, aligning with previous judgments. The Petitioner pointed out the current practice of appointing members for a two-year tenure, urging for compliance with the modified tenure requirements.

The Petitioner sought interim relief to delete the two-year appointment condition for specific members of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. The urgency of the matter was stressed, indicating the need for prompt action. The Respondent State was given time to file an affidavit-in-reply, with a deadline set for subsequent filings and a hearing date scheduled. The legal proceedings aimed to address the discrepancies in member appointments and ensure adherence to the revised tenure guidelines established by the Court.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenge to the tenure provisions in the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, emphasizing the significance of ensuring adequate tenure for Tribunal members. The Court's directives aimed to align the Rules with established legal principles to promote efficiency and independence within the Tribunal. The ongoing legal proceedings sought to rectify the current practice of appointing members for a two-year term, highlighting the need for compliance with the revised tenure requirements outlined in the judgment.