TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 13th October, 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai, on an application for stay filed by the petitioner in two VAT second appeals. The impugned demands which are subject matter of the pending appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal are in the sum of Rs. 14,61,31,580/and Rs. 25,01,74,230/respectively. These demands include tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal allowed the stay application by passing the following operative order: " Stay application is allowed; however subject to deposit of part payment as under: - Appeal No. Part Payment Amount Fixed (in Rs.) Installments (in Rs.) Date of Payment VAT SA 138/2017 2,50,86,966/- 41,81,161/- On or before 30/10/2017 41,181,161/- On or before 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned has been passed on the application for stay made by the petitioner in the pending appeals. While deciding such application, no issue could be finally decided or concluded and only a prima facie consideration of the controversy involved in the appeal is required to be made with a view to ascertain whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case. 5 Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the said Act of 2002, on the face of it gives an impression that an appeal will lie to this Court from every order passed by the Tribunal on a substantial question of law. However, the similar provision in another statute has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Central Bank of India v/s. Shri Kurian Babu And Ors. 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 1006 A Div....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant to raise additional grounds in the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal. In paragraphs 4 and 5, the Division Bench held thus: " 4. The expressions "every order passed in appeal" cannot be construed to take in its fold all interlocutory orders that may be passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, during the pendency of the appeal, particularly such orders which are procedural in nature. By use of the expression "every order passed in appeal", the legislature never contemplated nor intended that appeal may be preferred by an aggrieved party under Section 260A to the High Court challenging the interlocutory order particularly those which are procedural in nature not affecting the rights or liabilities of the parties. 5. Though....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Apex Court held thus: "3. The object of Section 38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. In the context of Section 38(1), the words "every order of the Controller made under this Act", though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceeding, the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders under Sections 36 and 37, such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....words, though wide, would exclude merely procedural orders or those which did not affect the rights or liabilities of parties." (emphasis added) 9 The decision in the case of Shankarlal Aggarwal is by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. In our view, what is held by the Apex Court and this Court will squarely apply to the provisions of sub-section( 1) of Section 27 of the said Act of 2002 and an interlocutory or a procedural order passed by the Appellate Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings can be always challenged by the aggrieved party while preferring an appeal against the final order. Unless, the order passed by the Tribunal is of such nature that it affects the rights and liabilities of the parties, no appeal will lie ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l to the petitioner. According to us, there is no perversity in the impugned order which is of discretionary and equitable in nature. 13 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the installments fixed under the impugned order may be converted into monthly installments. We propose to accede to the request made by the petitioner. However, the first installment in both the cases will have to be paid by 25th December, 2017. 14 Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:- (i) The impugned order is modified to a limited extent; (ii) In VAT Second Appeal No.138 of 2017, the first installment of Rs. 41,81,161/shall be payable by the petitioner on or before 25th December, 2017. The remaining fiv....