TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on interim stay conditions under MVAT & CST Acts, emphasizing burden of proof.</h1> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the interim stay application conditions under the MVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The Court ... Interim stay - it was argued that all authorities have overlooked that the suppliers have deposited the taxes due with the Government Treasury - Held that: - This is a purely factual matter - The Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the impugned order holds that the Petitioner/Appellant has not shown any record about suppliers depositing taxes with the Government Treasury. These are hardly satisfactory state of affairs. In interim orders where rights and equities are balanced by the Tribunal, we do not think that there is any scope for us to interfere, when all that the Tribunal has done and in favour of the Appellant/Petitioner is to bring down part payment amount from ₹ 1 Crore to ₹ 50 Lakhs and in another case to ₹ 50,000/- - petition dismissed. Issues:Interim stay application conditions under MVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act; Failure to provide proof of suppliers' tax deposit; Tribunal's decision upheld by High Court.Interim Stay Application Conditions under MVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act:The Petitioner/Appellant sought interim stay before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, which was granted with conditions of part payment under the MVAT Act and deposit under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Petitioner challenged this order before the Tribunal, arguing that authorities overlooked suppliers' tax deposits, which should have been verified for appropriate adjustment. The Tribunal reduced the part payment amount, but the High Court upheld the decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal's balancing of rights and equities in interim orders should not be interfered with.Failure to Provide Proof of Suppliers' Tax Deposit:The Petitioner claimed to possess proof of suppliers' tax deposits, which was not shown to the authorities. The Tribunal noted the absence of such evidence in its order, despite the Petitioner's assertion. The High Court acknowledged the Petitioner's claim but deemed it unsatisfactory, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner. The Court highlighted that all remedies and contentions could be pursued in the substantive proceedings before the First Appellate Authority.Tribunal's Decision Upheld by High Court:The High Court refused to interfere in the Tribunal's decision, stating that the conditions imposed for interim stay were just, fair, and necessary. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, maintaining that the Tribunal's order was reasonable and that all reliefs could be sought during the substantive proceedings. Additionally, the extension of time to comply with the Tribunal's order was denied by the High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
