Challenged Tax Tribunal Orders Set Aside, Appeal Remanded for Fresh Consideration

The petitioners challenged ex parte dismissal orders by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal for the financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96 under relevant tax acts. Their restoration application was rejected, leading to objections against rule 61(2). Seeking to set aside the Tribunal's orders, they offered to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs towards tax liability, with the court accepting their payment schedule. The court set aside the ex parte orders, remanding the appeals for fresh consideration, and lifted the attachment on bank accounts. However, non-compliance with payment terms could result in order revival and reattachment.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging ex parte dismissal order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, challenge of ex parte order in Miscellaneous Application, rejection of restoration application, challenge of rule 61(2) as ultra vires, prayer for setting aside orders of the Tribunal, deposition of sales tax liability, acceptance of undertaking, setting aside ex parte orders, remanding appeals to the Tribunal, lifting of attachment on bank accounts, consequences of default in payment.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested the ex parte dismissal order by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal for the financial year 1994-95 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They also challenged an ex parte order in a Miscellaneous Application along with the dismissal of Second Appeal No. 832 of 2003 for the period 1995-96. A restoration application was filed against all the mentioned orders, which was rejected by the Tribunal due to being beyond the permissible time limit. The petitioners raised objections against rule 61(2) for allowing ex parte dismissal without considering merits, citing a Supreme Court judgment for support.

The petitioners sought the setting aside of the Tribunal's orders and requested a fresh hearing on the merits for the appeals related to the sales tax acts. During the hearing, the petitioners expressed willingness to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs towards the tax liability, with an initial payment of Rs. 4 lakhs followed by monthly instalments. An undertaking was presented in court regarding the payment schedule, which was accepted by the court. Consequently, the court agreed to set aside the ex parte orders in the interest of justice, remanding the appeals back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration based on the law and merits.

In light of the accepted undertaking, the court decided to lift the attachment on the petitioners' bank accounts. However, a condition was imposed that any two defaults in the payment of instalments would lead to the revival of the original orders and reattachment of the bank accounts. The petition was disposed of with these directions and conditions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the payment schedule to avoid adverse consequences.

---