PNP 1 WP2121-20.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2121 OF 2011 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ..Petitioner. vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax and other ..Respondents. …. Mr. Subhash P. Surte for the Petitioner. Mr. B.B. Sharma, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2. ... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ. 20 October 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Petition is directed against an order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in an appeal against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) requiring the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.222.24 Crores as against the dues assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in the amount of Rs.444.88 Crores for financial year 2002-03. The assessment proceedings are under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959. By an order dated 19 November 2010, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax raised a demand of Rs.444.88 Crores for Assessment PNP 2 WP2121-20.10 Year 2002-03. Of this the tax assessed is Rs.196.61 Crores while interest under Section 36(3)(b) is in the amount of Rs.248.22 Crores. The Petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. On an application for interim stay, the appellate authority directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.222.24 Crores. Against that order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal by its impugned order recorded the submission of the Petitioner that assessment ought to have been completed within a period of five years from the end of the Assessment Year i.e. on or before 31 March 2008 but the assessment orders were initially passed on 31 March 2009 and later on 29 November 2010. The assessee has contended that the assessment was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that whether the provisions of Section 33 (4A) and Section 33(4)(1-B) or Section 33(5) would apply, would have to be determined. However, the Tribunal held that a prima facie case has been made out. Nonetheless the Tribunal directed that the amount to be paid should be commensurate with the prima facie dispute and while it was of the view that a payment of Rs.222.24 Crores was on the higher side, a part payment of Rs.3 Crores should be ordered. 4. The contention of the Petitioner is that it is a public sector corporation and the dues of the State Government on account of sales tax are secured. Moreover, it has been urged that the PNP 3 WP2121-20.10 Tribunal having found a prima facie case, dispensation ought to have been granted. It was urged that the appeal should be expedited. 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent supported the order of the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal has in its order indicated that it finds a prima facie case. In that view of the matter, particularly having regard to the fact that the Petitioner, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., is a Central Government undertaking, an order of dispensation of pre- deposit should have been passed. Once there is a prima facie case, there was no occasion to the Tribunal to observe that the amount of payment should be commensurate with the aforesaid prima “ facie dispute . For these reasons, we are of the view that the ” ends of justice could be met if the Petitioner is granted a waiver of pre-deposit and the hearing of the appeal is expedited. The first appellate authority is directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and a waiver of deposit is granted to the Petitioner. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)