Bombay High Court
M/S. Tml Business Services Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... on 19 July, 2024
Author: K. R. Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram
2024:BHC-AS:27687-DB
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
Sayyed 501-WP.12714.2023 speaking
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12714 OF 2023
M/s. TML Business Services Ltd.,
TATA Motors Campus, Pimpri,
Pune - 4110018 ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Salex Tax,
Pune VAT - E-622 (LTU) Pune
2. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax,
LTU - 2, Pune Division, 4th Floor,
GST Bhavan, Airport Road Yerwada
Pune - 411 006
3. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Zubair Dada a/w Mr. H. N. Vakil and Mr. Samkit Shah i/by. Mulla &
Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for Petitioner.
Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. for Respondent-State.
__________
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 19th JULY 2024
P.C. :-
1 Ms. Vyas, Additional Government Pleader mentioned the
above matter today and sought circulation for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 9th July 2024. By consent of Petitioner and Respondents, same was listed today at 12 noon.
1 of 2 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // Sayyed 501-WP.12714.2023 speaking 2 After hearing the Petitioner and Respondents, following corrections are made in the order 9th July 2024 :
In paragraph 13, last sentence beginning with "At the same time, Ms. Vyas agreed that giving purely by numbers, there has been an excess payment by Petitioner of Rs.10,69,89,606/-" shall be deleted and replaced with :
"Ms. Vyas submits that Respondents were bound by the mandate of Section 50(1) of the MVAT Act which provides for adjustment of refund against the amount of tax outstanding in respect of any other period. Ms. Vyas further placed reliance on Question Nos.23 and 24 of the Trade Circular dated 15th May 2019 in support of the action of adjustment of refund for the year 2011-12 against demand for 2010-11."
In paragraph, 18 at the end, following be added:
"Reliance placed by Respondents on Section 50 (1) of MVAT Act and on Trade Circular dated 15th May 2019 to justify the adjustment of refund for the year 2011-12 against demand for 2010-11 is misconceived. On the day when the refund adjustment order was passed, i.e. 23rd May 2019, there was no demand outstanding for the year 2010-11 as Petitioner had already availed the benefit of Settlement Scheme for year 2010-11 much prior to 23rd May 2019 and paid the amount as per the said Scheme on 13 th May 2019."
3 Rest of Judgment remains unaltered. The original Judgment dated 9th July 2024 be modified and the corrected Judgment be uploaded accordingly.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [K. R. SHRIRAM, J.] Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali 2 of 2 Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/07/2024 10:47:49