9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciates for the petitioners Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special Counsel a/w Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3 P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a Notification dated 30th March, 2016 issued by respondent no.1 - State of Maharashtra. By the impugned Notification, Entry No.82B has been inserted in Schedule C to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a composition scheme. 3. Mr. Venkatraman, the learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition very fairly points out that there are decisions of Madras, Delhi, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Orissa High Courts where orders were passed in the petitioners' own cases and it was held under the respective Acts that the petitioners were dealers in respect of the sale of repossessed motor vehicles and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed motor vehicles a sale under the MVAT Act. It is for the respondents now to issue an appropriate notice in case it does not agree with the contention of the petitioners. On such a notice being issued by the respondent, the petitioners would respond. It is only thereafter that the respondent's officers would decide the issue on the basis of the proper interpretation of the word "Seller" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ature. The issue of constitutional validity would only arise if interpretation put forth by the petitioners on the Entry No.82B of Schedule C to the MVAT Act does not find favour with the respondent Revenue on adjudication. Thus, we see no reason to interfere at this stage. However, we make it clear that the petitioners challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned notification dated 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
