TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under Section 27(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 lies against an interlocutory or procedural stay order of the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's stay order imposing part-payment by fortnightly instalments called for interference and modification.
Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Section 27(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 lies against an interlocutory or procedural stay order of the Tribunal.
Analysis: The expression "every order passed by the Tribunal" was read in light of settled principles that a right of appeal against wide wording does not extend to orders that are merely procedural or interlocutory and do not determine rights or liabilities. A stay order passed pending the appeal involves only a prima facie assessment and does not finally decide the controversy. Such an order remains open to challenge, if at all, in an appeal against the final order.
Conclusion: No appeal lies against the impugned stay order under Section 27(1) as it is an interlocutory or procedural order that does not finally affect rights or liabilities.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's stay order imposing part-payment by fortnightly instalments called for interference and modification.
Analysis: The Tribunal had considered prima facie case and granted substantial interim relief by directing deposit of only 50% of the basic tax liability in each matter. The order was found to be discretionary and equitable, and no perversity was shown in the exercise of discretion. At the same time, the request to convert the instalments into monthly instalments was accepted as a limited modification of the interim arrangement.
Conclusion: The stay order was not interfered with on merits, but it was modified only to the limited extent of changing the schedule of payment.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of modification of the payment schedule, while the Tribunal's interim stay conditions were otherwise left intact.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory right of appeal against "every order" does not extend to interlocutory or procedural orders that do not finally determine the parties' rights or liabilities, and interim stay orders may be interfered with only on a showing of arbitrariness or perversity in the exercise of discretion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
