STRESSED ASSESTS STABILIZATION FUND vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Judgment text excerpt

mvxa.16.2016 & 02.2020.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MAHARASHTRA VALUE ADDED TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2016 IN APPEAL NO.23 OF 2014 WITH MAHARASHTRA VALUE ADDED TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2020 IN APPEAL NO.23 OF 2014 Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent UTKARSH Ms. Nikita Badheka a/w Parth Badheka, Lata Nagal KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Advocates for the Petitioner. Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2025.03.03 Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P. a/w Atul Vanarse, AGP for 14:34:15 +0530 Respondent/State. CORAM :B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 4, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: MARCH 03, 2025 JUDGMENT [ PER: B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ] 1. Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No.16 of 2016 challenges the order dated 4th June 2015 [hereinafter referred to as Page 1 of 50 MARCH 03, 2025 mvxa.16.2016 & 02.2020.docx “impugned order No.1” or the “1st impugned order”] passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short “the MSTT”) in VAT Appeal No.23 of 2014. By impugned order No.1, the MSTT confirmed the Determination Order dated 28 th March 2014 (for short “the DDQ Order”) passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 (for short “the MVAT Act”) inter alia holding that the Appellant is a “deemed dealer” as per the Explanation to Section 2(8) of the said Act. Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No.16 of 2016 was admitted vide order dated 30 th August 2016 on the following three questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts, evidences, circumstances and details available on record, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellant Trust is a deemed dealer under section 2(8) of MVAT Act 2002 liable for