M/S. SCHREIBAR DYNAMIX DAIRIES LTD, vs. MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX TRIBUNAL, MAHARASHTRA STATE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7924/2012HC BombayHCBM01032710201215 March 2013Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.A. SAYED,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the pendency of a writ petition challenging a statutory amendment is not, in itself, a sufficient ground to grant a stay of recovery of demand. The Court found that the amounts fixed by the Tribunal as pre-deposits (Rs.20 lakhs for MVAT and Rs.15 lakhs for CST) were not excessive. The Court explicitly stated that it would not be appropriate at that stage to render a finding on the merits of the issues pending in the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Court found no case for interference with the Tribunal's order. The petition was dismissed, but the time for the petitioner to effect the deposit was extended by six weeks.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Ltd., is challenging a demand of Rs.3.97 crores under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act, 2002, and Rs.1.06 crores under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956, for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pune, raised this demand. The petitioner's appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) Pune were subject to a deposit condition. Initially, the appellate authority required a deposit of Rs.1 crore and Rs.25 lakhs respectively. The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal subsequently reduced these pre-deposit amounts to Rs.20 lakhs for the MVAT demand and Rs.15 lakhs for the CST demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the pre-deposit amount fixed by the Tribunal is excessive, considering the petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the retrospective amendment of Sections 93 and 93A of the MVAT Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of provisions related to pre-deposit for appeals and the validity of statutory amendments). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and that the pendency of their writ petition challenging the retrospective amendment of Sections 93 and 93A of the MVAT Act should be a ground for granting a stay of recovery. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the pendency of the writ petition is not a sufficient ground to grant a stay of recovery and that the amount specified by the Tribunal is not excessive. The revenue did not explicitly name any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 93,Section 93A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

sat 1/2 wp 7924-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7924 OF 2012 M/s.Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.C.B. Thakkar i/b. Mr.M.M. Vaidya for Petitioner. None for Respondent.

CORAM : DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

15 MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- For Assessment Year 2007-2008, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pune has raised the demand of Rs.3.97 crores under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and of Rs.1.06 crores under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) Pune. The appellate authority required the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1 crore and Rs.25 lakhs respectively as a precondition for staying recovery. The Tribunal has scaled down the amount to Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs respectively in respect of the demand under the MVAT Act, 2002 and the CST Act, 1956.

sat 2/2 wp 7924-2012

The contention of the petitioner is that it has filed a writ proceeding challenging the retrospective amendment made in Sections 93 and 93A of the MVAT Act and the amount fixed is excessive. The pendency of the writ petition is by itself no ground to grant a stay of recovery of demand. The amount which has been specified in the order of Tribunal is certainly not excessive. At this stage it would not be appropriate for the court to render a finding on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Hence we do not find a case for interference.

The petition is dismissed. However time to effect the deposit is extended by a further period of six weeks from today. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.)

More judgments on Section 93

All 34 judgments and leading authorities on Section 93 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →