Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 911 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxGrant of interim stay against the recovery of the amount of tax assessed by the respondents-authorities - the appellant had challenged the said assessment for recovery of the tax, interest and the penalty. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions on the ground of alternative remedy. However, in the writ appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench upheld the levy of tax as per its decision dated 06.02.2010. The matters were carried before the Apex Court and the Apex Court initially vide order dated 12.03.2010 granted interim order against the deposit of ₹ 50 crores and also observed that pending the petitions, the petitioner will now implement the impugned judgment for the future period till the matter is finally disposed of. But subsequently upon the application for modification preferred by the appellant, the Apex Court having taken note of the deposit of the amount of ₹ 50 crores, observed that let the Assessing Officer proceed with the assessment proceedings, but restrained recovery till further orders - appellant contended that in view of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, no recovery whatsoever can be made by the State authorities even if the assessment is completed for the subsequent period may be after 2008 to 2010 and even from 2010 to 2016. Held that: - It is hardly required to be stated that in an intra- Court appeal, the judicial scrutiny would be available if the learned Single Judge has committed ex facie error or has exercised discretion in a perverse manner. If the learned Single Judge has taken one possible view when two views are possible, it may not be a case for interference. As such, if the matter is examined in light of the same, the learned Single Judge has exercised discretion by granting interim protection upon condition to deposit 50% of the tax amount which could be approximately around ₹ 336 crores, since in any case, the protection is already granted for the interest and the penalty. As such, in our view, it cannot be said that the discretion has been exercised by the learned Single Judge in a perverse manner or that the learned Single Judge has committed any ex facie error while granting the interim protection which may call for interference in an intra- Court appeal. By virtue of the interim order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant may be required to deposit about ₹ 337 Crores, whereas as against the VAT amount, if calculated for the period after April 2010 to March 2014 it comes to ₹ 544 Crores. Under the circumstances, if the lump-sum figure of ₹ 337 Crores which may be required to be deposited by the order of the learned Single Judge is considered as against the amount of ₹ 544 Crores, it cannot be said that the ultimate effect of imposing a condition to deposit the amount while granting interim protection is not by properly balancing the rights nor it can be said that any unreasonable view has been taken by the learned Single Judge while modulating the interim protection. We do not find any case made out for interference to the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to grant of interim protection on condition to deposit 50% of the tax amount. However, we make it clear that our observations in the present order shall not prejudice rights of the parties to approach the Apex Court for appropriate modification and/or clarification of the order of the Apex Court in the pending S.L.P. and if any clarification or modification is so made by the Apex Court, the right of the parties shall stand governed accordingly. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|