AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the order passed in VAT Appeal No. 561 of 2014 on 5th January, 2015.
The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal had before it this appeal and particularly directed against the interim stay order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) VI, Mumbai. The First Appellate Authority viz. the Deputy Commissioner had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 76,73,937/- as a condition for stay of recovery of taxes pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Investigation Branch, Mumbai, pending the disposal of the first appeal.
The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax had passed the order for the financial year 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009. Aggrieved thereby, the First Appellate Authority was approached and application for stay of recovery of taxes pending disposal of the first appeal was filed. Dealing with that application and deciding it that the condition noted above has been imposed.
The Tribunal was approached against such a conditional stay order of the First Appellate Authority and it found that the appellant has made out a prima facie case to the extent of stay of the direction to pay interest and penalty. However, as far as the taxes are concerned as against the sum determined at Rs, 76,73,937/-, the Tribunal brought it down to Rs. 22,59,672/-. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons in paragraph 4 of the order under challenge.
Against such a discretionary and equitable order on a stay application, we do not see any substantial question of law arising for determination and consideration by this Court. We do not see any reason to entertain the appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
We do not think that any sentence or line in the order of the Tribunal should be read out of context and in isolation. The Tribunal''s reasoning is only tentative and prima facie. Neither the Tribunal has termed the transaction as havala or the appellant as a havala trader or dealer. The Tribunal''s order does not decide anything finally. There is no apprehension, therefore, that the First Appellate authority will be influenced by such observations and tentative findings of the Tribunal. To leave no room for any apprehension we direct that the First Appellate Authority should decide the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations and tentative findings in the order of the Tribunal. All contentions are kept open.