TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 8 November 2019 WP No. 8834 of 2018. 3. The issue, which arises in the appeal, is whether amounts which have been deposited under protest prior to an order of assessment can be adjusted against the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal under Section 26(6A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 (MVAT Act). 4. The appellant is a public limited company which engages in the manufacture and sale of oleo-chemicals and personal care products. Between 15 November 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 by a letter dated 4 June 2018 that the payments which were made under protest could not be considered towards pre-deposit for the purpose of Section 26(6A). A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was instituted to challenge the letter dated 4 June 2018. 7. Arguments were heard and the petition was reserved for judgment on 14 February 2019. By a judgment delivered nearly seven months thereafter, on 8 November 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the petition. The High Court has held that once an order of assessment has been passed, any amounts which have been paid albeit under protest, would have to be adjusted against the total tax liability and the demand to follow. Hence, the view of the High Court was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of an appeal against a separate order imposing only penalty, deposit of an amount, as directed by the appellate authority, which shall not in any case, exceed 10 per cent of the amount of penalty, disputed by appellant." 9. Mr. V Sridharan, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that: (i) clauses (b) and (c) of Section 26(6A) stipulate that the appeal has to be filed, together with proof of payment of an amount equal to 10 per cent "of the amount of tax disputed by the appellant"; (ii) The statutory provision does not stipulate that 10 per cent of the tax in arrears has to be deposited, but requires that 10 per cent of the tax disputed by the appellant has to accompany the filing of the appeal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osited in pursuance of Section 26(6A). The amount which has been deposited by the appellant anterior to the order of assessment cannot be excluded from consideration, in the absence of statutory language to that effect. A taxing statute must be construed strictly and literally. There is no room for intendment. If the legislature intended that the protest payment should not be set off as the deposit amount, then a provision would have to be made to the effect that 10 per cent of the amount of tax in arrears is required to be deposited which is not the case. Justice Bhagwati in A.V Fernandez v. State of Kerala AIR 1957 SC 657, writing for a Constitution Bench, elucidated the principle of strict interpretation in construing a taxing statue as ....