9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .. The petitioners have been assessed to pay a sales tax of Rs. 52,33,390 and were also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 52,11,000 as penalty. Against this order the petitioners have filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss. After dismissal of the second appeal, applications were moved bearing Nos. 16 to 25 in the various appeals filed by the present petitioners for making a reference under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and during the pendency of these applications it was submitted by the applicantspetitioners that the impugned order of assessment be stayed. These applications came to be rejected by the learned President of the Sales Tax Tribunal vide his order dated March 27, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the amount of the tax, if any, due in accordance with the order of the Tribunal in respect of which an application has been made under sub-section (1) shall not be stayed pending the disposal of such application or any reference made in consequence thereof; but if such amount is reduced as the result of such reference, the excess tax paid shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions of section 43." 5.. It appears, from perusal of above sections, that section 265 provides that the liability to pay the tax in accordance with the assessment would continue despite a reference to the High Court or to the Supreme Court. There is no specific prohibition to grant stay for the payment of the assessed amount in the provision. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Act, but there is no specific prohibition to grant stay. Whereas, under section 61(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, which we have quoted above, there is a prohibition to grant stay. The exercise of inherent powers may be possible only in cases where the statute has not dealt with the specific situation, but when the situation has been specifically dealt with in a statute, it would not be open for a court to exercise inherent powers or similar powers to annul the provisions of the statute, as was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527. In this case it was observed that: "These observations clearly mean that the inherent powers are not in any way controlled by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
