Dismissed

Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. the Regional Officer, Transport Commissioner and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2008WP/1103/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. against a tax order. The court held that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Rule 29 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959, and directed disposal of the appeal if filed within a fortnight.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the appeal was directed to be disposed of within a fortnight if filed.

Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1103 OF 2008

¶4

 Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioners

¶5

 versus

¶6

 The Regional Officer, Transport
 Commissioner, Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr. G. J. Cama i/b. Mr. G. Tripathi for the
 Petitioners.

¶8

 Mr. S. K. Nair, AGP for the Respondents - State.

¶9

CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J.

¶10

DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 . Heard.

¶13

 2. The petitioners have an alternate remedy
 under Rule 29 of The Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax
 Rules, 1959. There is a statement in the impugned
 order about the provision for appeal. There is no
 merit in the contention that the appeal is only on
 the quantum of tax. Rule 29 reads as follows:

¶14

 "29. Appeal under Section 14 to Appellate
Authority - (1) Any person aggrieved by an

¶15

:2:

¶16

 order of a Taxation Authority made under the
 Act may within thirty days from the date of
 receipt of such order where such person is
 fleet owner, appeal to the State Government
 and in any other case, to the Transport
 Commissioner, Bombay (hereinafter in these
 rules referred to as the "appellate
 authority"). The Secretary, the Joint
 Secretary, or a Deputy Secretary to the
 State Government in the Home Department
 shall hear such appeals on behalf of the
 State Government.

¶17

 (2) An appeal under sub-rule (1) shall be
 preferred in duplicate in the form of a
 memorandum setting forth concisely the
 grounds of objection to the order appealed
 against and shall be accompanied by a
 certified copy of that order, and a fee of
 rupees twenty five in cash."

¶18

 2. In the circumstances, there is no reason to
 entertain this petition, which is hereby dismissed.

¶19

 3. The appeal if filed within a fortnight from
 today it shall be disposed of not later than two
 months.

¶20

 4. The amount deposited in this court shall be
 withdrawn by the respondents who shall hold the
 amount on account and shall deal with the amounts
 subject to the directions of the Appellate
 Authority.

¶21

:3:

¶22

(S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. the Regional Officer, Transport Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. the Regional Officer, Transport Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitesh Kothari Vs Superintendent of Land Records and 2 Ors.

Pradeep C. Mody Vs Shashikant C. Mody and 4 Ors. and W.P.Mody and Anr.

Rashid Abdul Sattar Oomerbhoy Vs Majid Ahmedbhai Oomaerbhoy and Ors.

Sumadhu Estates Developer Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S.Patel Ghanshayamdas and Co. and Ors.

Ashvin Vinayakant Treasurer Vs Pravin B. Haribhakti and Ors.

Ashvin Vinaykant Treasurer and Anr. Vs Dr.Pravin Bhagwandas Haribhakti and 7 Ors. and S.S.Desai and 2 Ors.