Bul Infra Developers PVT. LTD. And Anr vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Ministry Of Finance And Ors

Facts

A batch of writ petitions were filed by Bul Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and other petitioners before the Bombay High Court, challenging assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT), 2007. The petitioners contended that their grievances were covered by a previous decision of the High Court in Bharat Udyog Limited & Another v/s. State of Maharashtra & Another, which dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act, 2002, concerning pre-deposit requirements for appeals. The petitioners intended to file appeals before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal with applications for condonation of delay and waiver of pre-deposit, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Telangana v/s. Tirumala Constructions.

Held

The Court held that the petitions could be disposed of in terms of the directions issued in the case of Bharat Udyog Limited & Another v/s. State of Maharashtra & Another. The Court acknowledged that the issue of pre-deposit requirements had been settled by the Supreme Court in The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority/Tribunal by filing their respective appeals, along with applications for condonation of delay and waiver of pre-deposit, within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed that if such appeals and applications were filed, they should be considered by the Appellate Authority/Tribunal in accordance with the law. The Court also granted a limited protection against recovery steps for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioners to file their appeals. All contentions of the parties on the merits of the proposed appeals were expressly kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of Section 26(6A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, as amended, are applicable and constitutionally valid, particularly concerning the requirement of pre-deposit for filing appeals, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in State of Telangana v/s. Tirumala Constructions and the subsequent GST regime? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that their case is covered by the High Court's decision in Bharat Udyog Limited, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Telangana v/s. Tirumala Constructions. They contended that the amendments requiring pre-deposit under Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act, 2002, were held to be void for want of legislative competence after the introduction of the GST regime. They sought liberty to approach the Appellate Authority/Tribunal to file appeals with applications for condonation of delay and waiver of pre-deposit. Revenue's arguments: The Respondent-State did not dispute that the petitions could be disposed of in terms of the directions issued in the Bharat Udyog Limited case, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal.