9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs [in "Exhibit-A and Exhibit-C"] and Rs.22 Lakhs [in "Exhibit-B"] as a condition for stay to the recovery of tax assessed by the Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 1) for the FY 2016-2017 to 2018-2019. The Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 1) passed the assessment orders and imposed a total liability of approximately Rs. 6.59 Crores towards tax and Rs. 6.48 Crores towards interest for the year 2016-2017; approximately Rs. 7.33 Crores towards tax and Rs. 7.13 Crores towards interest for financial year 2017-2018; and approximately Rs. 6.57 Crores towards tax and Rs.6.15 Crores towards interest for financial year 2018-2019. In all these cases, by the impugned orders, and which are passed in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranting a stay. 3. According to Mr. Rohan Shah, the short point on which the above orders are challenged is that despite the fact that a strong prima facie case is made out, and which was recorded in an earlier order passed by the same Tribunal in relation to this very Petitioner for the year 2011-2012 to 2014-2015, coupled with the fact that admittedly there is financial hardship on the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been asked to deposit the aforesaid amounts. According to the Petitioner, the strong prima facie case is that exemption is denied to the Petitioner completely ignoring the language of the Exemption Notification dated 30th April 2011 and seeks to rely upon the provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, she submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 5. We have heard Mr. Shah, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Ms. Vyas, the learned AGP appearing for the State. As far as the preliminary objection is concerned, the same need not detain us any further because the same is covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhambhani Shipping Ltd v/s State of Maharashtra & Ors (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9663). In this decision, a Division Bench of this Court was in fact considering the provisions of Section 27 of the MVAT Act, 2002 and came to the conclusion that an order granting or refusing to grant a stay on conditions, is not an appealable order under Section 27 of the MVAT Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
