JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.)

1. The writ petition challenges two Orders in Appeal dated 14th February 2025, one under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MVAT Act” for short) and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (“CST Act”, for short) passed by respondent No.4 for the Financial Year 2013-2014.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have confirmed the following demands which are arbitrary, contrary to the statutory provisions of law and therefore unsustainable :-

Table A

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is engaged inter alia in the business of sale and distribution of software products, along with allied services such as marketing support and product support services. The petitioner voluntarily obtained registration under the MVAT Act and CST Act with effect from 3rd September 2012.

4. For the FY 2012-2013, being the first year of operations in the State of Maharashtra, the petitioner filed returns in accordance with the statutory requirements and discharged its tax liability. The total CST liability for the said year was Rs.19,200/-, while there was no MVAT liability.

5. Since the tax liability in the preceding year was below the prescribed threshold of Rs.1,00,000/-, in terms of Rule 17(4) read with Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (“MVAT Rules, 2005”, for short) the petitioner became eligible to file six monthly returns for Financial Year 2013-2014. The provisions of Section 20 of the MVAT Act with respect to filing of returns and Section 32 of the MVAT Act with respect to payment of tax and corresponding rules are extracted below for a facility of convenience :-

Table B

6. In compliance with the said statutory provisions, the petitioner filed six monthly returns for FY 2013-2014 under both the MVAT Act and CST Act and discharged tax amounting to approximately Rs.41.35 crores (taxable turnover of Rs.981 crores) within the due dates prescribed for such six monthly returns. There was no delay in payment of tax vis-a-vis the due dates prescribed under Rule 41 of the MVAT Rules. In respect of one additional self-assessed CST liability arising due to non-receipt of certain Form C declarations, the petitioner voluntarily paid tax of Rs.34,55,622/- along with interest of Rs.5,19,724/- which fact is not disputed.

7. Subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated and culminated in two Assessment Orders dated 31st March 2018, whereby certain demands were confirmed, inter alia, in relation to alleged disallowance of credit notes and non-submission of Form C declarations. The petitioner filed statutory appeals before respondent No.4.

8. During the appellate proceedings, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 28th October 2024 by respondent No.4 proposing to levy interest under Section 30(2) of the MVAT Act for delayed payment of tax. It was opined that it is hyper technical to rely on amount of previous year payment as prescribed under Rule 17 of MVAT Rules, 2005 and file six monthly returns and make payment accordingly when the petitioner’s case is assigned to Large Taxpayers Unit and the petitioner’s tax payment during the year is more than Rs.40 crores.

9. The petitioner filed a reply vide letter dated 10th December 2024 and attended personal hearing on 13th December 2024 before the respondent No.4. By the impugned orders dated 14th February 2025, the respondent No.4 :

(a) Levied interest under Section 30(2) of the MVAT Act for VAT and CST Assessments on the premise that tax ought to have been paid on a monthly basis instead of six-monthly basis; and

(b) Demanded tax and interest on alleged disallowance of credit notes/mismatch in Annexure J1 and J2 under the MVAT assessment.

10. The respondent No.4 accepted that the petitioner was legally entitled to file six monthly returns, yet levied interest under Section 30(2) of the MVAT Act by treating t