TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of pre-deposit for the purpose of filing an appeal. The difficulty of the petitioner in depositing the amounts while filing the appeal will not exempt them from the requirement of Section 26(6B) of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 28th February, 2018 of the Tribunal so as to warrant any interference by us under Article 226 of the Constitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 28th February, 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal). By the impugned order, the petitioner's application to dispense with the requirement of depositing the tax into Government Treasury in accordance with Section 26(6B) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act) was rejected. 2. Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 28th February, 2018. 3. Inspite of the above, Ms. Prabha Badadare, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition states that the petitioner has not been able to deposit the amounts as required under Section 26(6B) of the Act in view of the financial difficulties and more particularly because its bank accounts are frozen / seized by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 28th February, 2018 of the Tribunal so as to warrant any interference by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. However, it may be pointed out that when the petitioner is able to satisfy with the requirement of Section 26(6B) of the MVAT Act, it could file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay to the Tribunal. In terms of Section 81 of the MVAT Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
