1 wp.3761.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3761 OF 2017
M/s. Solar Industries India Limited,
a registered company having its
Plot No.11, Zade Layout,
Bharat Nagar, Nagpur. ... APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax,
NAG-VAT-E-003 (LTU-II),
Vikrikar Bhavan, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
S
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. Rahul Thakkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. H.R. Dhumale, A.G.P. for the State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : June 20, 2017.
P.C.
1. Mr. Dhumale, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/State, waives notice. ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:45:26 :::
2 wp.3761.17.odt At the request of the counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notices dated 13.06.2017, issued under Section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (the Act) by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur. The impugned notices attach five bank accounts of the petitioner in Bank of India, Indusind Bank, UCO Bank and IDBI bank to secure dues of the Revenue to the extent of Rs.4.80 Crores. The above impugned attachment of the Bank Accounts has been done consequent to the order dated 23.02.2017 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai (Tribunal), which dismissed the appellant's appeal filed under Section 18A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, relating to financial year 2009-10 & 2010-11.
3. The basic controversy between the parties is whether the appellant is liable to pay Central Sales Tax in Maharashtra as the movement of goods, according to the Revenue, from one State to another State was occasioned by the contract of sale or as contended by the petitioner, that the goods have been stock transferred from Maharashtra to other State and sales tax has been paid in the transferee ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:45:26 ::: 3 wp.3761.17.odt state where the goods are sold. Tribunal by its order dtd.23.02.2017 has upheld the stand of the Revenue resulting in the demand of sales tax to the extent of Rs.4.80 Crores.
4. It is the petitioner's contention that the order of Tribunal dtd.23.02.2017 is appelable to the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority (C.S.T.A.A.) under Section 20 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has on 05.06.2017 already filed an appeal and stay application from the order dated 23.02.2017 of the Tribunal to the C.S.T.A.A. within the prescribed time. However, the petitioner states that its appeal and stay application as filed before C.S.T.A.A. cannot be disposed of as the post of its Chairman is lying vacant, and therefore, states that the C.S.T.A.A. is not passing any order. The petitioner received a notice dated 12.04.2017 from the Registrar of C.S.T.A.A. informing the petitioner that the cases listed before C.S.T.A.A. have been adjourned until further orders.
5, Inspite of the above facts, it is submitted that the petitioner was shocked to receive communication dated 13.06.2017 from the Sales Tax Department informing it that its five bank accounts, which are subject matter in this petition, have been attached in its entirety for recovery of tax ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:45:26 ::: 4 wp.3761.17.odt dues aggregating to Rs.4.80 Crores.
6. The petitioner has a right of appeal to the C.S.T.A.A. against the order of the Tribunal under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner has filed its appeal and application for stay within the prescribed time before C.S.T.A.A. The appeal and stay application could not be heard and listed for no fault of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, no action should be taken by the Revenue to the petitioner's prejudice. Particularly when it is not the case of the Revenue that the petitioner will siphon any of its amount and the Revenue may not be able to recover its dues. Fairness would demand that till the C.S.T.A.A. decides the stay application, no coercive proceedings be adopted against the petitioner by the Revenue.
7. In the above view, the impugned notices dt. 13.06.2017 are quashed and set aside. However, we are of the view that the petitioner should secure the dues of the State in the form of bank guarantee or any other mode so as to ensure that in case appeal of the petitioner is dismissed, no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue.
8. Mr. Thakkar on taking instruction states that the ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:45:26 ::: 5 wp.3761.17.odt petitioner will keep an amount of Rs.4.81 Crores separately in a fixed deposit account. The same would be available for the benefit of the Revenue, subject to further orders passed by the C.S.T.A.A. on the stay application. The petitioner will forward a photo copy of the Fixed Deposit of Rs.4.81 Crores made by it, to the Revenue within 15 days from today.
9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J). (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) waghmare ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:45:26 :::