9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt it required pre-deposit is held void. Considering the finality now having reached in regard to the issue of pre-deposit being put to rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Telangana Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions, it is opined that the request of the Petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority/Tribunal needs to be accepted. The Petitioners shall approach the Appellate Authority/Tribunal by filing their respective appeals along with applications praying for condonation of delay and also waiver of pre-deposit within a period of four weeks from today. If such appeal alongwith application are filed as permitted such proceedings be considered by the Appellate Authority/Tribunal in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed on the application as also on the appeals - petition disposed off. - G.S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, J.J. WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18228 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15338 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 14430 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18255 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 14430 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7501 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18257 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7501 OF 2023 WITH W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the ground of non-production of such declaration or, as the case may be, certificate then, amount of tax, as provided in the proviso to sub-section (6), (b) in case of an appeal against an order, which involves disallowance of claims as stated in clause (a) above and also tax liability on other grounds, then, an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the amount of tax, disputed by the appellant so far as such tax liability pertains to tax, on grounds, other than those mentioned in clause (a), (c) in case of an appeal against an order, other than an order, described in clauses (a) and (b) above, an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the amount of tax disputed by the appellant, (d) in case of an appeal against a separate order imposing only penalty, deposit of an amount, as directed by the appellate authority, which shall not in any case, exceed 10 per cent. of the amount of penalty, disputed by appellant: Provided that, the amount required to be deposited under clause (b) or, as the case may be, clause (c), shall not exceed rupees fifteen crores. (6B) No appeal shall be filed, before the Tribunal, against an order, which is passed on or after the commencement of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (6C) to Section 26 of the 2002 Act, as incorporated by Maharashtra Act 31 of 2017 w.e.f. 15th April 2017 had fell for consideration of this Court in Anshul Impex Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra (STA No.2 of 2018 dt. 28.09.2018). The said proceedings came to be decided on 28th September 2018, wherein this Court held such an amendment to be inapplicable to the years prior to the amending act. 4. It appears that subsequent to the decision of this Court in Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the State amended the 2002 Act by an ordinance namely Maharashtra Ordinance No.VI of 2019 published in the Government Gazette on 6th March 2019, whereby an explanation came to be inserted below sub-section (6C) of Section 26 with effect from 15th April 2017. The said explanation is also required to be noted which reads thus:- (6C) The appellate authority or, as the case may be, Tribunal shall stay the recovery of the remaining disputed dues, in the prescribed manner, on filing of an appeal under sub-section (6A) or, as the case may be, subsection (6B).] [ Explanation . For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that, the provisions of sub-sections (6A), (6B) and (6C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court were also part of the said proceedings, namely the challenge to the decision of the full bench of this Court in United Projects Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). In adjudicating such issues, insofar as the decision of this Court in United Projects Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) was concerned, the Supreme Court held that in view of the conclusions as reached on interpretation of the Constitutional amendment and also the provisions of Article 246A of the Constitution, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the United Projects Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) was required to be held to take an erroneous view and accordingly the same was set aside. The relevant observations in regard to the Supreme Court considering the Maharashtra position can be found in paragraph Nos. 114 and 115, as also in the conclusion which are required to be noted which reads thus:- 114. As far as the Maharashtra appeals are concerned, the assessee s grievance is that the retrospective amendments, made to the Maharashtra VAT Act, were void. On 15.04.2017, the State published Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act 2017 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r view curing the defect pointed out by any Court through a judgment or simplicitor removing such defects does not amount to encroachment directly or indirectly or overruling the view taken by the Court or overreaching the powers of the State Government by nullifying the effect of the law laid down by the Court. 115. In the opinion of this court, there is no quarrel with the proposition that a legislative body is competent to enact a curative legislation with retrospective effect. Yet, the same vice that attaches itself to the Gujarat amendment, i.e. lack of competence on the date the amendment was enacted i.e. in this case, 09.07.2019, the Maharashtra legislature ceased to have any authority over the subject matter, because the original entry 54 had undergone a substantial change, and the power to change the VAT Act, ceased, on 01.07.2017, when the GST regime came into effect. Therefore, for the same reasons, as in the other cases, the amendments to the Maharashtra VAT Act cannot survive. VI. Conclusions 116. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the findings of the court in these cases are: (i) .. (ii) .. (iii) .. (iv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
