9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort "MSTT"]. 2. According to the Revenue, the following questions of law arise for consideration:- "(a) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal on the true and proper construction of Section 51 (7) of Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002, was justified in holding that mere filing of self-assessment returns under Section 20 (1) r/w. Section 50 of the MVAT Act, 2002, is sufficient without filing application for refund as per law to claim refund when it is mandatory to file refund application on portal within stipulated limitation? (b) Whether on the true and proper construction of Section 51 (7) of Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 is it mandatory to submit E-form-501, within stipulated period of limitation to claim refund despite filing of self-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred First Appeal before the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) E-905, Nodal Division-5, Mumbai. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), vide an Order dated 19th October, 2019, rejected the First Appeal of the Assessee holding that the letter given by the Asst. Commissioner of State Tax (D-901), Mumbai, dated 19th May, 2018, was not an order as mandated by section 26 (1) of the MVAT Act, and therefore, the Appeal was not maintainable. 5. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Assessee preferred an Appeal to the MSTT. The MSTT, relying upon its decision in M/s. Om Shree Developers v/s. State of Maharashtra [VAT/SA/134-135/2020, Pune Bench, decided on 12th October, 2021], came to the conclusion that there was considerable substance in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government, but it is the property of the dealer, who is entitled to get a refund after scrutiny of the returns. In these circumstances, the Tribunal (in M/s. Om Shree Developers) allowed the Appeal and directed the Assessing Authority to scrutinize/ assess the returns submitted by the Appellant [i.e. Om Shree Developers], in accordance with law, at the earliest. 8. This Order of the Tribunal in M/s. Om Shree Developers (supra) has been accepted by the Department and has not been challenged. Once this is the case, we are of the opinion that the Department cannot pick and choose and file an Appeal in the present case, when it has chosen not to file an Appeal in the case of M/s. Om Shree Developers (supra). In taking this view, we are supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 193] cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessee in a quandary. 12:-The principle in Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) is being followed consistently. 13:- Since admittedly the point involved in the present case is identical to the point involved in Sulzer's case (supra) and the department having accepted the principle laid down therein, the department cannot be permitted to take a different stand in the present appeals." (emphasis supplied) 9. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
