9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 26th September, 2018 was passed under Section 26(6) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act, 2002). 2. The impugned order dated 26th September, 2018 emanated from the petitioner's appeal challenging the order dated 5th July, 2017 of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) (who was hearing the petitioner's first appeal) directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 12.69 crores out of the aggregate dues of Rs. 90.82 crores (tax and interest) payable for the period 2015 to 2016 under the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2002 (the Act) for staying of the order dated 20th March, 2017 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax under the Act. 3. We note that the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outside the State. In this case, the goods have entered the local area from Thane; and (c) The petitioners are undergoing great financial hardship which made it impossible for it to deposit the amount of Rs. 12.69 crores as directed by the first appellate authority for staying the assessment order till the disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. 5. So far as the grievance of the petitioners to the impugned order of the Tribunal in respect of the submissions (a) and (b) as recorded hereinabove is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has noted that it would require deeper consideration at final hearing and had factored in the above while holding that the payment of Rs. 12.69 crores out of a confirmed demand of Rs. 90.82 cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovering the same if in view of financial difficulty, the lapse of time may result in the business itself winding up. However, these are the issues which the impugned order of the Tribunal should have addressed and taken a view while disposing of the petitioner's appeal from the order of the first appellate authority directing a deposit of Rs. 12.69 crores. 9. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside only to the extent it has not dealt with the petitioner's contention with regard to financial hardship. The Tribunal would consider the petitioner's application for stay in the context of claim that it is in financial difficulty and pass an appropriate order thereon, in the context of payment to be made for stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
