The Appellant Trust is deemed a dealer under the MVAT Act, liable for sales tax despite its non-profit status, and the denial of prospective effect to the DDQ Order was upheld.

JUDGMENT [ PER: B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ]

1. Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No.16 of 2016 challenges the order dated 4^th June 2015 [hereinafter referred to as “impugned order No.1” or the “1^st 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 registration and payment of tax under MVAT Act.

(b) Whether on the facts, evidences, circumstances and details available on record, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the view of the Ld. Commissioner that “it is not necessary for levy of Sales Tax, that the Appellant must carry on ‘business’ in the capacity of the dealer”.

(c) Whether on the facts, evidences, circumstances and details available on record the Tribunal was justified in holding that the transaction of sale of movable property is affected by SASF, especially when the Commissioner had clearly observed that whether there is sale of movable or immovable property, is to be ascertained by the field officers at the appropriate stage.

2. Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No.2 of 2020 challenges the order dated 24^th February 2020 [hereinafter referred to as “impugned order No.2” or the “2^nd impugned order”] passed the Larger Bench of the MSTT denying the Appellant the benefit of prospective effect to the DDQ Order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. To put it simply, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, by the DDQ Order, [under section 56(2) of the MVAT Act], denied the Appellant the benefit of prospective effect to the said DDQ Order. This part of the DDQ Order was confirmed by the Larger Bench of the MSTT. The Larger Bench was constituted to decide the issue of prospective effect because initially when the DDQ Order passed the Commissioner of Sales Tax was challenged before the MSTT, a two member bench of the MSTT, whilst upholding the DDQ Order in so far as it held that the Appellant is a “deemed dealer” under the MVAT Act [impugned order No.1], had a difference of opinion on whether the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of prospective effect. It is in these circumstances, that a Larger Bench was constituted pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 22^nd November 2017 in MVAT Appeal No.46 of 2017. This order of the Larger Bench is challenged in Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No.2 of 2020. This Appeal was admitted on 19^th July 2023 on the following four questions of law:-

(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea of grant of prospective effect u/s. 56(2) of MVAT Act to the order of the Commissioner dt. 28.03.2014?

(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal’s finding as listed below are perverse as they are not based on any evidence on record, contrary to evidence on record and otherwise unreasonable. The following perverse findings has resulted in denial of prospectiv