Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Nircon Construction vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2024
C.A.NO.14180 of 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14180 of 2024
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19230/2022)
NIRCON CONSTRUCTION .. APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. .. RESPONDENT (S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Writ Petition No. 3103 of 2018 and allied matters dated 10th August, 2022 by which the High Court dismissed all the petitions relying upon its Full Bench decision in United Projects vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Writ Petition No.2883 of 2018).
3. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:-
“1. The reliefs sought in these petitions are covered by a judgment of Full Bench of this Court pronounced on 12th July 2022 (yet to be reported) in United Projects V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Paragraph 197 of the said judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2024.12.17 19:06:34 IST 1 Reason: C.A.NO.14180 of 2024 reads as under:
“197. We accordingly answer the question of law referred to Full Bench as under:-
(i) Question of Law (a) i.e.“whether the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 to amend the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 to incorporate mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016 that is post 101 Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016?” is answered in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(ii) Question of Law (b) i.e.“whether Explanation to Section 26 of the MVAT Act introduced with effect from 15th April 2017 by the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 takes away the right of the assessee to file an appeal without statutory deposit in respect of orders passed for the assessment years prior to 15th April 2017 and whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018?” is answered in negative and in favour of Revenue.
(iii) The question of law (c) as to whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul 2 C.A.NO.14180 of 2024 Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018 is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue.
(iv) Question of Law (c) i.e. “whether the decision of the Division bench in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra laying down that right of filing appeal accrues on the date of order of assessment and requirement of mandatory pre-deposit introduced by way of amendment does not apply to the orders passed in the assessment years prior to 15th April, 2017, is a correct proposition since the right of appeal can be made conditional by the Legislature with express indication” is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue and is thus declared not a good law.
(v) It is declared that the explanation inserted in 2019 amendment w.e.f. 15th April, 2017 would apply to those orders which are passed after 15th April, 2017 and not to the prior orders. All earlier orders are governed by the original provisions of Section 26(6) and not by the amendment. Both the provisions i.e. old Section 26(6) and the amendment introduced by Sub Section 6A, 6B and 6C to Section 26 and the explanation thereto will apply and co-exist.
(vi) Office is directed to place these matters before the Division Bench having assigned these matters for passing further orders.
2. In the circumstances, nothing would survive in these petitions.
3. Petitions dismissed. Consequently, interim applications also stand disposed. 3 C.A.NO.14180 of 2024
4. Should petitioner wish to file an appeal before the MVAT Appellate Authorities, petitioner may do so within four weeks from today.
5.Stay granted earlier to continue for four weeks from today.”
4. We have heard Ms.Kavita Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. We need not adjudicate this appeal now on merits in the wake of one major development. The Full Bench decision which was relied upon by the Bombay High Court for the purpose of dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is no longer a good law in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of The State of Telangana and Others vs M/s. Tirumala Constructions (Civil Appeal No.1628 of 2023) decided on 20-10-2023.
6. In the decision of this Court referred to above while drawing the final conclusion the Court held as under:-
“116. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the findings of the court in these cases are:
(i) Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 246A enacted in exercise of constituent 4 C.A.NO.14180 of 2024 power, formed part of the transitional arrangement for the limited duration of its operation, and had the effect of continuing the operation of inconsistent laws for the period(s) specified by it and, by virtue of its operation, allowed state legislatures and Parliament to amend or repeal such existing laws.
(ii) Since other provisions of the said Amendment Act, had the effect of deleting heads of legislation, from List I and List II (of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India), both Section 19 and Article 246A reflected the constituent expression that existing laws would continue and could be amended. The source or fields of legislation, to the extent they were deleted from the two lists, for a brief while, were contained in Section 19. As a result, there were no limitations on the power to amend.
(iii) The above finding is in view of the vacuum created by the coming into force of the 101st Amendment, which resulted in deletion of the heads of legislation in the two lists aforesaid.
(iv) The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is 5 C.A.NO.14180 of 2024 held void.”
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J. [J.B. PARDIWALA] ……………………………………………J. [R. MAHADEVAN] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 10, 2024.
6 C.A.NO.14181 of 2024 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.14181 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.20694/2022) F. A. CONSTRUCTIONS ..APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Writ Petition No. 2902 of 2018 and allied matters dated 10th August, 2022 by which the High Court dismissed all the petitions relying upon its Full Bench decision in United Projects vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Writ Petition No.2883 of 2018).
3. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:-
“1. The reliefs sought in these petitions are 1 C.A.NO.14181 of 2024 covered by a judgment of Full Bench of this Court pronounced on 12th July 2022 (yet to be reported) in United Projects V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Paragraph 197 of the said judgment reads as under:
“197. We accordingly answer the question of law referred to Full Bench as under:-
(i) Question of Law (a) i.e. “whether the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 to amend the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 to incorporate mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016 that is post 101 Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016?” is answered in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(ii) Question of Law (b) i.e.“whether Explanation to Section 26 of the MVAT Act introduced with effect from 15th April 2017 by the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 takes away the right of the assessee to file an appeal without statutory deposit in respect of orders passed for the assessment years prior to 15th April 2017 and whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018?” is answered in negative and in favour of Revenue.
(iii) The question of law (c) as to whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018 2 C.A.NO.14181 of 2024 is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue.
(iv) Question of Law (c) i.e. “whether the decision of the Division bench in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra laying down that right of filing appeal accrues on the date of order of assessment and requirement of mandatory pre-
deposit introduced by way of amendment does not apply to the orders passed in the assessment years prior to 15th April, 2017, is a correct proposition since the right of appeal can be made conditional by the Legislature with express indication” is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue and is thus declared not a good law.
(v) It is declared that the explanation inserted in 2019 amendment w.e.f. 15th April, 2017 would apply to those orders which are passed after 15th April, 2017 and not to the prior orders. All earlier orders are governed by the original provisions of Section 26(6) and not by the amendment. Both the provisions i.e. old Section 26(6) and the amendment introduced by Sub Section 6A, 6B and 6C to Section 26 and the explanation thereto will apply and co-exist.
(vi) Office is directed to place these matters before the Division Bench having assigned these matters for passing further orders.
2. In the circumstances, nothing would survive in these petitions.
3. Petitions dismissed. Consequently, interim applications also stand disposed.
4. Should petitioner wish to file an appeal before the MVAT Appellate Authorities, petitioner may do so within four weeks from today. 3 C.A.NO.14181 of 2024
5. Stay granted earlier to continue for four weeks from today.”
4. We have heard Ms.Kavita Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. We need not adjudicate this appeal now on merits in the wake of one major development. The Full Bench decision which was relied upon by the Bombay High Court for the purpose of dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is no longer a good law in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of The State of Telangana and Others vs M/s. Tirumala Constructions (Civil Appeal No.1628 of 2023) decided on 20-10-2023.
6. In the decision of this Court referred to above while drawing the final conclusion the Court held as under:-
“116. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the findings of the court in these cases are:
(i) Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 246A enacted in exercise of constituent power, formed part of the transitional arrangement for the limited duration of its operation, and had the effect of 4 C.A.NO.14181 of 2024 continuing the operation of inconsistent laws for the period(s) specified by it and, by virtue of its operation, allowed state legislatures and Parliament to amend or repeal such existing laws.
(ii) Since other provisions of the said Amendment Act, had the effect of deleting heads of legislation, from List I and List II (of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India), both Section 19 and Article 246A reflected the constituent expression that existing laws would continue and could be amended. The source or fields of legislation, to the extent they were deleted from the two lists, for a brief while, were contained in Section 19. As a result, there were no limitations on the power to amend.
(iii) The above finding is in view of the vacuum created by the coming into force of the 101st Amendment, which resulted in deletion of the heads of legislation in the two lists aforesaid.
(iv) The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is held void.” 5 C.A.NO.14181 of 2024
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J. [J.B. PARDIWALA] ……………………………………………J. [R. MAHADEVAN] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 10, 2024.
6 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14182 of 2024 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.14182 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.20644/2022) UNITED PROJECTS .. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. .. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Writ Petition No. 2883 of 2018 and allied matters dated 10th August, 2022 by which the High Court dismissed all the petitions relying upon its Full Bench decision in United Projects vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Writ Petition No.2883 of 2018).
3. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:-
“1. The reliefs sought in these petitions are covered by a judgment of Full Bench of this Court 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14182 of 2024 pronounced on 12th July 2022 (yet to be reported) in United Projects V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Paragraph 197 of the said judgment reads as under:
“197. We accordingly answer the question of law referred to Full Bench as under:-
(i) Question of Law (a) i.e. “whether the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 to amend the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 to incorporate mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016 that is post 101 Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016?” is answered in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(ii) Question of Law (b) i.e.“whether Explanation to Section 26 of the MVAT Act introduced with effect from 15th April 2017 by the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 takes away the right of the assessee to file an appeal without statutory deposit in respect of orders passed for the assessment years prior to 15th April 2017 and whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018?” is answered in negative and in favour of Revenue.
(iii) The question of law (c) as to whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14182 of 2024 Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018 is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue.
(iv) Question of Law (c) i.e. “whether the decision of the Division bench in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra laying down that right of filing appeal accrues on the date of order of assessment and requirement of mandatory pre-deposit introduced by way of amendment does not apply to the orders passed in the assessment years prior to 15th April, 2017, is a correct proposition since the right of appeal can be made conditional by the Legislature with express indication” is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue and is thus declared not a good law.
(v) It is declared that the explanation inserted in 2019 amendment w.e.f. 15th April, 2017 would apply to those orders which are passed after 15th April, 2017 and not to the prior orders. All earlier orders are governed by the original provisions of Section 26(6) and not by the amendment. Both the provisions i.e. old Section 26(6) and the amendment introduced by Sub Section 6A, 6B and 6C to Section 26 and the explanation thereto will apply and co-exist.
(vi) Office is directed to place these matters before the Division Bench having assigned these matters for passing further orders.
2. In the circumstances, nothing would survive in these petitions.
3. Petitions dismissed. Consequently, interim 3 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14182 of 2024 applications also stand disposed.
4.Should petitioner wish to file an appeal before the MVAT Appellate Authorities, petitioner may do so within four weeks from today.
5. Stay granted earlier to continue for four weeks from today.”
4. We have heard Ms. Kavita Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. We need not adjudicate this appeal now on merits in the wake of one major development. The Full Bench decision which was relied upon by the Bombay High Court for the purpose of dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is no longer a good law in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of The State of Telangana and Others vs M/s. Tirumala Constructions (Civil Appeal No.1628 of 2023) decided on 20-10-2023.
6. In the decision of this Court referred to above while drawing the final conclusion the Court held as under:-
“116. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the findings of the court in these cases are:
(i) Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14182 of 2024 246A enacted in exercise of constituent power, formed part of the transitional arrangement for the limited duration of its operation, and had the effect of continuing the operation of inconsistent laws for the period(s) specified by it and, by virtue of its operation, allowed state legislatures and Parliament to amend or repeal such existing laws.
(ii) Since other provisions of the said Amendment Act, had the effect of deleting heads of legislation, from List I and List II (of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India), both Section 19 and Article 246A reflected the constituent expression that existing laws would continue and could be amended. The source or fields of legislation, to the extent they were deleted from the two lists, for a brief while, were contained in Section 19. As a result, there were no limitations on the power to amend.
(iii) The above finding is in view of the vacuum created by the coming into force of the 101st Amendment, which resulted in deletion of the heads of legislation in the two lists aforesaid.
(iv) The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is 5 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14182 of 2024 held void.”
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J. [J.B. PARDIWALA] ……………………………………………J. [R. MAHADEVAN] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 10, 2024.
6 C.A. NO. 14183 of 2024 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.14183 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.20705/2022) NIRCON CONSTRUCTION .. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENT (S) O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Writ Petition No.2979 of 2018 and allied matters dated 10th August, 2022 by which the High Court dismissed all the petitions relying upon its Full Bench decision in United Projects vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Writ Petition No.2883 of 2018).
3. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:-
“1. The reliefs sought in these petitions are covered by a judgment of Full Bench of this Court pronounced on 12th July 2022 (yet to be reported) in United Projects V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Paragraph 197 of the said judgment 1 C.A. NO. 14183 of 2024 reads as under:
“197. We accordingly answer the question of law referred to Full Bench as under:-
(i) Question of Law (a) i.e. “whether the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 to amend the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 to incorporate mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016 that is post 101 Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016?” is answered in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(ii) Question of Law (b) i.e. “whether Explanation to Section 26 of the MVAT Act introduced with effect from 15th April 2017 by the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 takes away the right of the assessee to file an appeal without statutory deposit in respect of orders passed for the assessment years prior to 15th April 2017 and whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018?” is answered in negative and in favour of Revenue.
(iii) The question of law (c) as to whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2 C.A. NO. 14183 of 2024 in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018 is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue.
(iv) Question of Law (c) i.e. “whether the decision of the Division bench in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra laying down that right of filing appeal accrues on the date of order of assessment and requirement of mandatory pre-deposit introduced by way of amendment does not apply to the orders passed in the assessment years prior to 15th April, 2017, is a correct proposition since the right of appeal can be made conditional by the Legislature with express indication” is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue and is thus declared not a good law.
(v) It is declared that the explanation inserted in 2019 amendment w.e.f. 15th April, 2017 would apply to those orders which are passed after 15th April, 2017 and not to the prior orders. All earlier orders are governed by the original provisions of Section 26(6) and not by the amendment. Both the provisions i.e. old Section 26(6) and the amendment introduced by Sub Section 6A, 6B and 6C to Section 26 and the explanation thereto will apply and co-exist.
(vi) Office is directed to place these matters before the Division Bench having assigned these matters for passing further orders.
2. In the circumstances, nothing would survive in these petitions.
3. Petitions dismissed. Consequently, interim applications also stand disposed. 3 C.A. NO. 14183 of 2024
4. Should petitioner wish to file an appeal before the MVAT Appellate Authorities, petitioner may do so within four weeks from today.
5. Stay granted earlier to continue for four weeks from today.”
4. We have heard Ms. Kavita Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. We need not adjudicate this appeal now on merits in the wake of one major development. The Full Bench decision which was relied upon by the Bombay High Court for the purpose of dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is no longer a good law in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of The State of Telangana and Others vs M/s. Tirumala Constructions (Civil Appeal No.1628 of 2023) decided on 20-10-2023.
6. In the decision of this Court referred to above while drawing the final conclusion the Court held as under:-
“116. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the findings of the court in these cases are:
(i) Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 246A enacted in exercise of constituent 4 C.A. NO. 14183 of 2024 power, formed part of the transitional arrangement for the limited duration of its operation, and had the effect of continuing the operation of inconsistent laws for the period(s) specified by it and, by virtue of its operation, allowed state legislatures and Parliament to amend or repeal such existing laws.
(ii) Since other provisions of the said Amendment Act, had the effect of deleting heads of legislation, from List I and List II (of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India), both Section 19 and Article 246A reflected the constituent expression that existing laws would continue and could be amended. The source or fields of legislation, to the extent they were deleted from the two lists, for a brief while, were contained in Section 19. As a result, there were no limitations on the power to amend.
(iii) The above finding is in view of the vacuum created by the coming into force of the 101st Amendment, which resulted in deletion of the heads of legislation in the two lists aforesaid.
(iv) The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is held void.” 5 C.A. NO. 14183 of 2024
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J. [J.B. PARDIWALA] ……………………………………………J. [R. MAHADEVAN] NEW DELHI.
DECEMBER 10, 2024.
6 C.A. NO.14184 of 2024 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.14184 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.20843/2022) UNITED PROJECTS .. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. .. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Writ Petition No.2927 of 2018 and allied matters dated 10th August, 2022 by which the High Court dismissed all the petitions relying upon its Full Bench decision in United Projects vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Writ Petition No.2883 of 2018).
3. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:-
“1. The reliefs sought in these petitions are covered by a judgment of Full Bench of this Court pronounced on 12th July 2022 (yet to be reported) in United Projects V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Paragraph 197 of the said judgment 1 C.A. NO.14184 of 2024 reads as under:
“197. We accordingly answer the question of law referred to Full Bench as under:-
(i) Question of Law (a) i.e. “whether the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 to amend the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 to incorporate mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016 that is post 101 Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016?” is answered in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(ii) Question of Law (b) i.e.“whether Explanation to Section 26 of the MVAT Act introduced with effect from 15th April 2017 by the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 takes away the right of the assessee to file an appeal without statutory deposit in respect of orders passed for the assessment years prior to 15th April 2017 and whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018?” is answered in negative and in favour of Revenue.
(iii) The question of law (c) as to whether the Explanation nullifies the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2 C.A. NO.14184 of 2024 in Sales Tax Appeal No.2/2018 is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue.
(iv) Question of Law (c) i.e. “whether the decision of the Division bench in the case of Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra laying down that right of filing appeal accrues on the date of order of assessment and requirement of mandatory pre-deposit introduced by way of amendment does not apply to the orders passed in the assessment years prior to 15th April, 2017, is a correct proposition since the right of appeal can be made conditional by the Legislature with express indication” is answered in negative and in favour of the Revenue and is thus declared not a good law.
(v) It is declared that the explanation inserted in 2019 amendment w.e.f. 15th April, 2017 would apply to those orders which are passed after 15th April, 2017 and not to the prior orders. All earlier orders are governed by the original provisions of Section 26(6) and not by the amendment. Both the provisions i.e. old Section 26(6) and the amendment introduced by Sub Section 6A, 6B and 6C to Section 26 and the explanation thereto will apply and co-exist.
(vi) Office is directed to place these matters before the Division Bench having assigned these matters for passing further orders.
2. In the circumstances, nothing would survive in these petitions.
3. Petitions dismissed. Consequently, interim applications also stand disposed. 3 C.A. NO.14184 of 2024
4. Should petitioner wish to file an appeal before the MVAT Appellate Authorities, petitioner may do so within four weeks from today.
5. Stay granted earlier to continue for four weeks from today.”
4. We have heard Ms.Kavita Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. We need not adjudicate this appeal now on merits in the wake of one major development. The Full Bench decision which was relied upon by the Bombay High Court for the purpose of dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is no longer a good law in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of The State of Telangana and Others vs M/s. Tirumala Constructions (Civil Appeal No.1628 of 2023) decided on 20-10-2023.
6. In the decision of this Court referred to above while drawing the final conclusion the Court held as under:-
“116. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the findings of the court in these cases are:
(i) Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 246A enacted in exercise of constituent power, formed part of the transitional 4 C.A. NO.14184 of 2024 arrangement for the limited duration of its operation, and had the effect of continuing the operation of inconsistent laws for the period(s) specified by it and, by virtue of its operation, allowed state legislatures and Parliament to amend or repeal such existing laws.
(ii) Since other provisions of the said Amendment Act, had the effect of deleting heads of legislation, from List I and List II (of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India), both Section 19 and Article 246A reflected the constituent expression that existing laws would continue and could be amended. The source or fields of legislation, to the extent they were deleted from the two lists, for a brief while, were contained in Section 19. As a result, there were no limitations on the power to amend.
(iii) The above finding is in view of the vacuum created by the coming into force of the 101st Amendment, which resulted in deletion of the heads of legislation in the two lists aforesaid.
(iv) The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is held void.” 5 C.A. NO.14184 of 2024
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J. [J.B. PARDIWALA] ……………………………………………J. [R. MAHADEVAN] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 10, 2024.
6
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.14 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19230/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-08-2022 in WP No. 3103/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay] NIRCON CONSTRUCTION Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 162207/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH SLP(C) No. 20694/2022 (IX) IA No. 173346/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 20644/2022 (IX) IA No. 172909/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 77313/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION) SLP(C) No. 20705/2022 (IX) IA No. 173400/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 20843/2022 (IX) IA No. 174798/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 10-12-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Pooja M Rastogi, Adv.
Ms. Divya Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application including intervention application stand disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed orders are placed on the file)