2017 (1) TMI 193 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court quashes Tribunal order, grants unconditional stay on tax demand. Upholds petitioner's right for relief.

Powertech Corporation Versus State of Gujarat

The Court quashed the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal's order directing payment of 15% of the demand during the pendency of the revision application. The ... Waiver of deposit, granting of stay on condition - seeking for unconditional grant of stay - Held that: - It is not in dispute that subsequently the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of M/s. Yantraman Automac Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat [2016 (7) TMI 588 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. In that view of the matter, the petitioner deserves unconditional stay of the demand, during pendency and final disposal of the revision application before the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit / make the payment of 15% of the demand and on such payment rest of the recovery order is to be stayed, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues involved:Challenge to impugned order of Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal directing payment of 15% of demand during pendency of revision application.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the demand and stay the rest of the recovery during the pendency and final disposal of the revision application. The petitioner argued that the issue was already settled by a previous decision of the Tribunal in another case, which was later confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner requested unconditional stay of the demand. The Court agreed with the petitioner and held that the impugned order directing the payment of 15% of the demand cannot be sustained. The Court quashed the order and granted the petitioner unconditional stay of the entire demand during the pendency and final disposal of the revision application before the Tribunal.This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in decisions and the impact of previous rulings on similar cases. It also emphasizes the right of a petitioner to seek unconditional stay of demand during the legal proceedings. The Court's decision to quash the impugned order and grant unconditional stay demonstrates a fair and just approach to resolving disputes related to tax demands during legal proceedings.