Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Commerical ... vs Svil Mines Limited Authorised Person ... on 2 September, 2022
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli
1
ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19368/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-07-2013
in WP No. 20300/2012 passed by the High Court of M.P. Principal
Seat at Jabalpur)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COMMERICAL TAXES DEPARTMENT & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SVIL MINES LIMITED AUTHORISED PERSON
JAYANT GOSWAMI S/O J.D. GOSWAMI LIASONING OFFICER Respondent(s)
(WITH IA No. 2/2014 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 19372/2014 (IV-C)
SLP(C) No. 20036/2014 (IV-C)
Date : 02-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aditya Ranjan, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Ms. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv.
Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Sneh Bairwa, Adv.
Mr. Vipul Abhishek, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified SLP(C) Nos 19368 of 2014 Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2022.09.03 13:32:13 IST Reason: 1 The State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax and the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) of 2 Commercial Tax challenge the correctness of an order dated 2 July 2013 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. While entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench issued the following directions:
“12. …
(i) The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeals on merits without insisting the petitioner for compliance of section 46(5) of the VAT Act, however, the aforesaid exemption shall be subject to final decision in the appeals and during pendency of the appeals all the properties and Bank Accounts of the petitioner shall remain attached with the authorities;
(ii) The appellate authority shall fix a date for hearing and on the aforesaid date decide the appeals in accordance with law without being prejudiced with the earlier orders passed by the authorities.
(iii) The authorities shall examine the validity of ex-parte block assessment orders and also the question whether it was a case of framing block assessment. All the questions shall be open to the appellate authority who will consider it in accordance with law preferably within a period of 30 days from the date fixed by this Court for appearance of the parties.
(iv) The parties present herein are directed to remain present before the appellate authority on 22.07.2013 for which date no fresh notice shall be issued and the petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.
During pendency of the appeals, the authorities shall not take any steps for sale of the attached property as was earlier directed in this case.” 2 The State of Madhya Pradesh moved these proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution and notice was issued on 14 July 2014. 3 Mr Saurabh Mishra, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners, states that, in pursuance of the impugned judgment of the High Court, the proceedings were carried in appeal before the appellate authority and the second appellate authority directed a deposit of twenty per cent of the 3 outstanding dues in terms of the provisions of Section 46(6) of the MP VAT Act. The AAG states that the above order was affirmed by the High Court on 3 September 2014 in Writ Petition No 8241 of 2014 against which the respondent instituted a Special Leave Petition, being SLP(C) No 27794 of 2014. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 12 October 2015 by this Court with the following order :
“As sufficient relief has been granted by the High Court to the petitioner in the matter of pre-deposit, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
4 In view of the subsequent developments which have taken place, the Special Leave Petition has been rendered infructuous. However, on the request of the learned AAG, we clarify that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case and the question of law is kept open.
5 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of. SLP(C) Nos 19372 of 2014 and 20036 of 2014 1 The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order. 2 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER