9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word “order” will not include an interlocutory or a procedural order which does not decide the rights between the parties. Petition disposed off. - Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2017 - A. S. Oka And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. C. B. Thakar a/w R.C. Thakar for the petitioner Mr. V. A. Sonpal, Spl. Counsel and Amar Mishra, AGP, for the respondent JUDGMENT ( Per A. S. Oka, J. ) 1 Rule. Respondents waive service. Forthwith taken up for hearing. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2 By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, the petitioner has taken an exception to the order dated 13th October, 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai, on an application for stay filed by the petitioner in two VAT second appeals. The impugned demands which are subject matter of the pending appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal are in the sum of ₹ 14,61,31,580/and ₹ 25,01,74,230/respectively. These demands include tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal allowed the stay application by passing the following operative order: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order impugned has been passed on the application for stay made by the petitioner in the pending appeals. While deciding such application, no issue could be finally decided or concluded and only a prima facie consideration of the controversy involved in the appeal is required to be made with a view to ascertain whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case. 5 Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the said Act of 2002, on the face of it gives an impression that an appeal will lie to this Court from every order passed by the Tribunal on a substantial question of law. However, the similar provision in another statute has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Central Bank of India v/s. Shri Kurian Babu And Ors. 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 1006 A Division Bench of this Court considered the provisions of sub-section( 1) of Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short RDB Act ). Sub-section( 1) of Section 20 reads thus: 20. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal: (1) Save as provided in Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be said to affect the rights of such party. More so because it is always open to the aggrieved party to challenge such interlocutory order in the appeal that may be preferred against the final order. The correctness of such interlocutory order being open to be challenged in appeal that may be preferred by the aggrieved person against the final order, we have no hesitation in holding that the present appeal is not maintainable. (emphasis added) 8 In the case of Central Bank of India vs. Gokal Chand AIR 1967 SC 799, the Apex Court interpreted Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 which reads thus: An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act to the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. (emphasis added) In paragraph 3 and 4, the Apex Court held thus: 3. The object of Section 38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. In the context of Section 38(1), the words every order of the Controller made under this Act , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and an interlocutory or a procedural order passed by the Appellate Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings can be always challenged by the aggrieved party while preferring an appeal against the final order. Unless, the order passed by the Tribunal is of such nature that it affects the rights and liabilities of the parties, no appeal will lie against an interim or interlocutory or procedural order passed by the Tribunal. 10 Hence, we proceed to consider the petition on merits as a remedy of appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the said Act of 2002 is not available in the facts of the case of the petitioner. 11 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order is very harsh and it is impossible for the petitioner to comply with the said order. He submitted that various contentions raised by the petitioner have not been addressed by the Tribunal. 12 As noted earlier, for the period from 1st April, 2009 to 31st March, 2010, against the total demand of ₹ 14,61,31,580/the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 2,50,86,966/and that also by six fortnightly installments. The amount ordered to be depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
