Disposed
Deepak Dinkarrao Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Bombay HCPIL/82/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PIL 82/13
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.82/2013
Deepak Dinkarrao Pathak.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Deepak Dinkarrao Pathak - petitioner - party in person.
Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Govt.Pleader for respondent nos.1 &
2.
Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent no.3.
.....
CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 27.03.2014
ORDER :
1]The petitioner is seeking directions to the State of
Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra
State and the Commissioner of Sales Tax - respondent nos.
1 & 2 for recovering professional tax from defaulting
Advocates. The relevant law governing recovery of
professional tax provides for mechanism to recover the
dues from the defaulting professionals. It would be the
legal responsibility of the concerned officials invested
PIL 82/13
with the powers to recover taxes to ensure proper
recovery. It would be open for the Commissioner to issue
appropriate directions in respect of recovery of
professional tax from the defaulting Advocates. Since
the law itself provides for the mechanism as well as
imposition of penalties, no separate directions need to
be issued at the instance of the party in person.
2]In view of above, the public interest litigation
stands disposed of.
ndk/c2731420
Deepak Dinkarrao Pathak
The State of Maharashtra
Commissioner of Sales Tax
R.M. BORDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court