TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court denies petition challenging Maharashtra VAT Act order, directs petitioner to appeal within two weeks.</h1> <h3>Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (I) P Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> The court found no justification to entertain the petition challenging an order under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, noting the availability of an ... Principles of Natural Justice - grievance of the petitioner is that the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax passed the impugned order dated 19.3.2018 confirming the show cause notice without considering the various submissions made by the petitioner in its reply dated 17.3.2018 - Held that:- There is an efficacious alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 19.3.2018. The Appellate Authority would necessarily examine all the grievances of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Thus, there is no reason to entertain this petition - petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to order under MVAT Act based on breach of natural justice, consideration of submissions by Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, availability of alternate remedy under Section 26 of MVAT Act.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order dated 19.3.2018 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, alleging a breach of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the Dy. Commissioner confirmed the show cause notice without adequately considering the submissions made in response. On the other hand, the respondent argued that there was no breach of natural justice and that the petitioner's submissions were duly considered in the impugned order. The respondent also pointed out that an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act was available to address the petitioner's grievance.The court noted the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act. The court emphasized that the Appellate Authority would thoroughly examine all the grievances raised by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court found no justification to entertain the present petition due to the existence of an alternative remedy through the appellate process.However, recognizing the petitioner's bona fide challenge to the impugned order before the court, the judges clarified that if the petitioner were to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, specifically the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), within two weeks from the date of the judgment, the appeal would be considered on its merits. This decision was made in acknowledgment of the petitioner's genuine pursuit of the challenge in court by filing the petition. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of based on the aforementioned terms.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
