Partly allowed

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012WP/619/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged levy of supervision charges. Court distinguished prior apex court precedents regarding retrospective recovery. Writ petition rejected on merits but directed authorities to consider application for apportionment of dues.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; direction issued to respondent authorities to consider application for apportionment of dues.

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp619.12

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 619 OF 2012

¶5

M/s. Mahaveer Traders Nanded ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondents

¶9

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2012

¶11

P. C. :-

¶12

The petitioner has approached this court, being aggrieved by the levy of supervision charges. Shri Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the levy of supervision charges is not applicable in view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Kopargaon S.S.K. Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009 (3) SCC 273 . The issue regarding levy of supervision charges and recovery of the same, with retrospective effect, is no more res-integra. The issue has been put to rest by the Apex court in the case of Government of Maharashtra Vs. Deokar’s Distillery, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 669 . It can clearly be seen from

¶13

wp619.12 -2-

¶14

the aforesaid judgment that the issue was put for consideration before the Apex Court regarding levy of supervision charges and recovering them with retrospective effect.

¶15

Insofar as the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Kopargaon S.S.K. Ltd. is concerned, the said reliance is without any substance. The issue regrading levy of supervision charges and issue of its recovery with retrospective effect was not an issue that was decided by the Apex Court in the said case. No doubt that in the said case, the Apex Court has set aside the demand of recovery of supervision charges with retrospective effect. However, the facts in the present case are totally different. In the said case, the demand notice issued by the authorities was challenged by the petitioner therein before the High Court and the High Court had set aside the said demand notice. The judgment of the High Court was not challenged by the department. Instead, the department again issued a second demand notice for the very same period. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court, in the said case, held that since the demand notice of recovery for the very same period was set aside by the High Court and the judgment was not challenged by the department, the second notice would be hit by the principles of res-judicata . Such are not the facts here. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly rejected.

¶16

wp619.12

¶17

-3-

¶18

At this stage, Shri Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of certain directions issued by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 3914 of 2011, directions be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for apportionment of dues of various licence holders.

¶19

We direct the respondent authorities to consider the application made by the petitioners, if any, for the purpose of apportionment, strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)

¶21

rlj/

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumant Achyut Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nilkantha Parappa Bhandare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sampatrao Bhanaji More and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pratap Deva Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.