9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declined to go into the question of existence of a prima facie case - The Petitioner has deposited a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs on 13th September 2017 without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the pending Appeal. In view of this deposit and considering the nature of the impugned order, we find that interference with the impugned order is warranted. The order dated 17th July 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai is set aside and stay applications in VAT Appeal Nos. 208 to 212 of 2016 are restored to the file of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. - Writ Petition No. 9714 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - A. S. Oka And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Chandrakant B. Thakar for the Petitioner Mr. Manish M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken in the case of M/s. Sun Tan (Supra) is that while dealing with application for stay, the Appellate Tribunal ought to apply its mind to the issues raised by the parties. In paragraph 8 of the decision in the case of M/s. Sun Tan (Supra), the Division Bench held thus: 8. After having heard both counsel at some length and perusing with their assistance the order passed by the Tribunal and impugned in the present petitions, we are of the view that the Tribunal's order on the interim application, though elaborate, it has failed to express even any prima facie view on all the contentions raised. It has gone ahead and fixed the part payment in one Appeal (VAT Appeal No. 941 of 2015) at ₹ 1,30,40,938/- and in another Appeal (VAT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, according to the facts disclosed, huge liability is arising as per Review Orders. The main reason for this liability is disallowance of set-off. The reason for dis-allowance is bogus / inflated purchases. Both the parties have opportunity to prove their case at the time of hearing of appeals. At this juncture, in our considered opinion, an amount to the extent of 25% of the basic tax dues for each period, will meet the requirement of part payment for granting stay in these appeals . 4. Thus, the Tribunal has declined to consider any of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The learned AGP appearing for the State relied upon the order dated 14th June 2016 passed by a Division Bench of this Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt payments were ordered to be made. It is in this context that the Writ Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the present case, even the Tribunal has declined to go into the question of existence of a prima facie case. 7. The Petitioner has deposited a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs on 13th September 2017 without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the pending Appeal. In view of this deposit and considering the nature of the impugned order, we find that interference with the impugned order is warranted. 8. Accordingly we pass following order:- (a) The order dated 17th July 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai is set aside an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
