High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 10 BOM CK 0139

President Trade and Exim Corporation and Another vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay High Court · Decided on 10 October 2011 · Citation: (2013) 61 VST 455

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.Y. Chandrachud, J · A.A. Sayed, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 5570 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 360 words
1.

The Sales Tax Tribunal by its order dated March 31, 2011 has modified an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) by which the petitioner was directed to make part payment of the tax liability to the extent of Rs. 1.75 lacs, Rs. 45 lacs and Rs. 16 lacs for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000 for the assessment year 2005-06, Rs. 4 lacs for the assessment year 2006-07 and Rs. 4.50 lacs for the assessment year 2007-08 instead and in place of the amount directed to be deposited by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that for the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of approximately Rs. 27.74 lacs and, therefore, no order of deposit was warranted. The Tribunal has duly taken note of the fact that for the assessment year 2007-08 there is a refund to the extent of Rs. 27.74 lacs. The Tribunal, however, had due regard to the total tax liability for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 which is about Rs. 1.43 crores. Hence, even after taking into account a refund of Rs. 27.74 lacs for the assessment year 2007-08, the direction for deposit of an amount of Rs. 9 lacs for the remaining two years cannot be regarded as arbitrary or contrary to law. The submission which the petitioner has on merits is that the petitioner is entitled to a set-off and that the provisions contained in section 48(2) read with section 48(5) would not be attracted. The merits of the submission would be considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) when the appeal is taken up. At this stage even considering the amount of refund due, the direction to deposit an amount of Rs. 9 lacs, does not warrant interference under article 226 of the Constitution. However, time to deposit the amount is extended by a further period of three weeks.

2.

Subject to the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.