1991 (9) TMI 324 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant stay on assessment order during pending reference application.

Champaklal Nanabhai and Another Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State

The Sales Tax Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay on an assessment order during a pending reference application under section 61 of the Bombay ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Tribunal to grant stay on an impugned order of assessment while an application for reference is pending.2. Interpretation of section 61(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act regarding the Tribunal's power to grant stay.3. Comparison of section 265 of the Income-tax Act with section 61(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.4. Applicability of the judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bansi Dhar and Sons [1986] 157 ITR 665; AIR 1986 SC 421 to the present case.5. Analysis of the inherent powers of the court in relation to statutory provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioners challenged the Sales Tax Tribunal's order dismissing their stay application during the pendency of a reference application under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay on the impugned assessment order.2. The petitioners were assessed for a significant amount of sales tax and penalty, leading to a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed. Subsequently, they sought a reference under section 61 and requested a stay on the assessment order, which was denied by the Tribunal President.3. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction during the reference application, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bansi Dhar and Sons [1986] 157 ITR 665; AIR 1986 SC 421. However, the Tribunal found the provisions of section 61(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act to prohibit granting a stay.4. A comparison was made between section 265 of the Income-tax Act and section 61(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, highlighting the difference in language and the absence of a specific prohibition on granting a stay in the former.5. The judgment in Bansi Dhar's case [1986] 157 ITR 665; AIR 1986 SC 421 was examined, emphasizing the limitation on the court's inherent powers when statutory provisions explicitly address a situation. The court concluded that the Tribunal rightly refused the stay application based on the statutory prohibition in section 61(6).6. The court held that inherent powers cannot be used to contravene statutory provisions and dismissed the writ petition, finding no impropriety in the Tribunal's decision. The counsel's request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.