TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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 the writ petition was barred by the availability of an appeal against the Tribunal's order under the MVAT regime; (ii) whether the condition requiring pre-deposit of specified amounts for stay of recovery of the assessment demands was justified.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an appeal against the Tribunal's order under the MVAT regime.
Analysis: The challenge was to an order granting stay on conditional deposit. The Court followed the binding view that such an order is not an appealable order under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The objection based on alternate remedy was therefore rejected. Reliance on the cited Supreme Court decision was held to be inapplicable on facts and under a different statutory context.
Conclusion: The maintainability objection was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the condition requiring pre-deposit of specified amounts for stay of recovery of the assessment demands was justified.
Analysis: The Court found that a strong prima facie case was made out, including on the interpretation of the exemption notification and the relevant metrology and beer-manufacture rules. It also accepted that financial hardship had been pleaded. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner should not be saddled with any pre-deposit as a condition for stay.
Conclusion: The pre-deposit condition was set aside and the assessment orders were stayed pending the first appeal.
Final Conclusion: The conditional stay orders were modified in writ jurisdiction, the recovery of the assessments was stayed, and the matter was disposed of with the assessee obtaining complete relief from the pre-deposit requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: An order granting or refusing stay on conditions under the MVAT appellate scheme is not appealable, and where a strong prima facie case and financial hardship are shown, the Court may dispense with pre-deposit and grant stay of recovery.
TaxTMI 
