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>Section 26(6A) of Maharashtra VAT Act 2002 declared void following Supreme ruling on legislative competence</h1> <h3>Bharat Udyog Ltd. & Anr. Nilesh Ramniklal Pandya, Mehul Transline Pvt. Ltd., Hitesh Ramniklal Pandya, Versus Bharat Udyog Ltd. & Anr. The State of Maharashtra, through the Government Pleader & Ors.</h3> Bharat Udyog Ltd. & Anr. Nilesh Ramniklal Pandya, Mehul Transline Pvt. Ltd., Hitesh Ramniklal Pandya, Versus Bharat Udyog Ltd. & Anr. The State of ... Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Section 26(6A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.2. Legislative competence of the State Government to amend the law retrospectively.3. Applicability of pre-deposit requirements to pre-2017 appeals and revisions.4. Impact of the Supreme Court's decision in The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions.Summary:Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Section 26(6A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002The batch of petitions challenged the constitutional validity of Section 26(6A), inserted by Maharashtra Amendment Act 31 of 2017, which mandated a pre-deposit for filing appeals. The Court noted the provisions of sub-sections (6A), (6B), and (6C) which required a mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax liability for appeals.Issue 2: Legislative Competence of the State Government to Amend the Law RetrospectivelyThe Court referred to the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that the amendment was inapplicable to periods before the amendment. However, the State subsequently amended the 2002 Act through an ordinance and later by the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act 2019, clarifying that the provisions would apply irrespective of the period to which the order relates.Issue 3: Applicability of Pre-Deposit Requirements to Pre-2017 Appeals and RevisionsThe Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in United Projects Vs. State of Maharashtra upheld the State's legislative competence to retrospectively amend the law to require pre-deposit for appeals, even for periods before the amendment. The Supreme Court, however, in The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions, held that the Maharashtra legislature lacked competence to amend the VAT Act after 01.07.2017, rendering the amendments void.Issue 4: Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision in The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala ConstructionsThe Supreme Court's decision set aside the Full Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court, declaring the amendments to the Maharashtra VAT Act void for want of legislative competence after the GST regime came into effect. Consequently, the pre-deposit requirements were invalidated.Conclusion:The petitions were disposed of, allowing the Petitioners to file their appeals along with applications for condonation of delay and waiver of pre-deposit within four weeks. The Appellate Authority/Tribunal was directed to consider these applications in accordance with the law. The Court also provided limited protection against demand notices for a period of four weeks to enable the Petitioners to approach the Tribunal/Appellate Authority. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.
TaxTMI 