9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ETITION NO. 15923 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18254 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15923 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9624 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1179 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1179 OF 2022 For the Petitioners/Applicants : Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Dash in WP/15338/2023 a/w IA/18228/2023, WP/14430/2023, IA/18255/2023, WP/7501/2023, IA/18257/2023, WP/15925/2023, IA/18253/2023, WP/15928/2023, IA/18251/2023, WP/ST/20136/2021, IA/18252/2023, WP/15927/2023, IA/18256/2023, WP/15923/2023, IA/18254/2023. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mihir Mehta a/w. Mr. Jas Sanghavi and Mr. Yash Prakash i/b. M/s. PDS Legal WP/9624/2021, WP/1179/2022 & WP/1056/2022. For the Respondent (State) : Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP in WP/15338/2023, WP/14430/2023, WP/7501/2023, WP/15925/2023. For the Respondent : Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP (State) in WP/15928/2023, WP/ST/20136/2021, WP/15927/2023 & WP/15923/2023, WP/9624/2021, WP/1179/2022 & WP/1056/2022. P.C. :- 1. These batch of petitions raise common issues of law, inasmuch as, these petitions were filed assailing the Constitutional validity of Section 26(6A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of claims as stated in clause (a) above and also tax liability on other grounds, then, an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the balance amount of disputed tax, so far as such tax liability pertains to tax, on grounds, other than those mentioned in clause (a), (c) in case of an appeal against an order, other than an order, described in clauses (a) and (b) above, an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the balance amount of disputed tax, (d) in case of an appeal against any other order, an amount, as directed by the Tribunal: Provided that, the amount required to be deposited under clause (b) or, as the case may be, clause (c), shall not exceed rupees fifteen crores. Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (6B), the expression, "balance amount of disputed tax" shall mean an amount of disputed tax, which remains outstanding, after considering the amount paid, as directed by the appellate authority in first appeal under clause (b) or, as the case may be, clause (c), respectively of sub-section (6A). (6C) The appellate authority or, as the case may be, Tribunal shall stay the recovery of the remaining disputed dues, in the prescribed manner, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26, it had the effect of clarifying that, the provisions of subsections (6A), (6B) and (6C) shall be applicable for any appeal, against all such orders, referred to in those sub-sections, irrespective of the period to which the order, appealed against, relates or irrespective of the date on which the proceedings in respect of such order had commenced. 6. It appears that the such amendment as brought about to the 2002 Act by the 2019 Act was challenged before this Court in the case of United Projects Vs. State of Maharashtra WP/ST/11589/2021 & WP/13754/2018. Such proceedings were referred for adjudication before a full bench of this Court, which rendered its judgment on 12th July 2022, whereby it was held that the State Government had legislative competence to remove the substratum of the foundation of a judgment retrospectively, namely as to what was held by the Division Bench in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It was held that the State Government was empowered to carry out amendment suitably to amend the law by use of appropriate phraseology as pointed out by the Court in any judgment and by amending the law inconsistent with a law decreed by the Court, so that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough ordinance i.e. Maharashtra Ordinance No.VI of 2019, published in the Government Gazette on 6th March, 2019. By the Ordinance the State of Maharashtra inserted an explanation w.e.f. 15th April 2017. According to the state, the explanation was inserted for the purpose of removal of doubts, in view of the Judgment of Nagpur Bench of the court in Anshul Impex Private Ltd. (supra). On 9th July 2019, the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act 2019 was enacted. It was published in the Government Gazette on 9th July 2019. The Ordinance was replaced by the enactment of the State Legislature inserting various provisions including the said explanation to Section 26 (6C) of the MVAT Act, 2002. The explanation had the effect of clarifying that the pre-deposit requirements applied to pre-2017 appeals and revisions. This was challenged. The High Court, by a Full Bench ruling United Projects Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 11589 of 2021, and Writ Petition No. 13754 of 2018), decided on 12.07.2022 upheld the amendment. It was held that "The State Government has legislative competence to remove the substratum of foundation of a Judgment retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -deposit would stand concluded/covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions (supra). It is however submitted that the Petitioners in these petitions are yet to file their appeals before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and now the Petitioners intend to file their respective appeals alongwith the delay condonation applications as also applications for waiver of pre-deposit. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions (supra), it is submitted that the Petitioners would take further steps to file the appeals within a period of four weeks from today along with appropriate applications for condonation of delay and for waiver of pre-deposit. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the finality now having reached in regard to the issue of pre-deposit being put to rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions (supra), we are of the opinion that the request of the Petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority/Tribunal needs to be accepted. We accordingly dispose of these petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
