S. K. TRADING CO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dtd. 30/9/2019 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai (for short, "the tribunal") on a stay application filed by the petitioner praying for stay of the order dtd. 27/3/2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) IV, Mumbai (the 'first appellate authority'). By the impugned order, while admitting the petitioner's second appeal, the petitioner's stay application has been partly allowed, whereby although stay is granted to the petitioner on the tax as demanded, stay has been refused on the order qua the interest amount of Rs.3,60,932.00, as demanded under Sec. 30(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short, the "Act"), forming part of the order as appealed.

(2.) The assessment in question is for the period 2012-13. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax passed an assessment order inter alia holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tax of Rs.34,85,603.00and interest under Sec. 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act, quantified at Rs.3,60,932.00 and Rs.20,38,268.00 respectively. Further, penalty under Sec. 29(3) of the Act was levied at Rs.8,71,401.00. In pursuance of such order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.56,00,000.00. Thus, the balance amount including interest amount and penalty as payable by the petitioner was an amount of Rs.61,96,204.00.

(3.) The order passed by the Assessing Officer was carried by the petitioner in a first appeal (First Appeal No.VAT-495/2017-18) filed under Sec. 26(6A) of the Act, which came to be adjudicated by an order dtd. 27/3/2018 passed by the first appellate authority. By such order the first appellate authority partly allowed the petitioner's appeal, thereby modifying the assessment order, with a direction to the assessing authority to recover the balance dues along with appropriate amount of interest and proceed further as per the provisions of law. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate authority, approached the tribunal in a second appeal (VAT Second Appeal No. 1109 of 2018), in which the stay application in question was filed by the petitioner, on which the impugned order has been passed.