Dismissed

M/S. Kalyan Infratech Pvt.Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Apr 2014WP/2133/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought transfer of pending sales tax assessment proceedings from Mumbai to the Aurangabad division. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the assessee cannot decide the forum and noted that proceedings are time-bound with contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

Petitions rejected; status quo order vacated; contentions kept open for authorities.

M/S. Kalyan Infratech Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

 WP 2133/14 & six others

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2133/2014

¶6

M/s Kalyan Infratech Pvt. Ltd. V/s

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2134/2014

¶9

M/s Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd. Aurangabad

¶10

V/s

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.2135/2014

¶13

M/s Keti Construction (I) Ltd. Aurangabad

¶14

V/s

¶15

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.2136/2014

¶17

M/s Keti T Construction (India) Ltd. Aurangabad

¶18

V/s

¶19

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶20

 WP 2133/14 & six others

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.2137/2014

¶23

M/s. Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. Aurangabad V/s

¶24

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.2138/2014

¶26

M/s Kalyan Toll Highways Pvt.Ltd. Aurangabad

¶27

V/s

¶28

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.2139/2014

¶30

M/s Kalyan Keti Toll Pvt.Ltd. Aurangabad

¶31

V/s

¶32

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶33

 .....

¶34

Shri R. K. Samal, Advocate i/b Shri Arvind Deshmukh,
Advocate for petitioners.

¶35

Shri S.G. Karlekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶36

 .....

¶37

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶38

DATE: 08.04.2014

¶39

 WP 2133/14 & six others

¶40

- 3 -

¶41

ORDER :

¶42

1]The petitioners are praying for transfer of

¶43

assessment proceedings from the office of the respondent
no.3 to respective officer in Aurangabad division. It is
stated that there are various assessment proceedings
pending against the petitioners and those are required to
be dealt with by one officer stationed at Aurangabad.

¶44

2]In response to the notice issued by this Court, the
respondents have caused appearance and it has been
informed that proceedings in all cases of the single
petitioner are being carried out before the Assistant
Commissioner, Sales Tax (Investigation), MUM-INV-D-040,
Mumbai and the principle of one place one officer is
being followed in the case.

¶45

3] The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali V/s Commissioner of Income Tax & others reported

¶46

at (2013) 352 ITR 53 (Bom) and contends that the
contention raised by the petitioners deserves acceptance.
It is contended that there is huge documentary record,
which needs to be referred to in the proceedings and it

¶47

 WP 2133/14 & six others

¶48

- 4 -

¶49

would be quite inconvenient for the parties to take all

¶50

the record at Mumbai and prosecute the matters. The
issue before the Division Bench in the decided matter was
as to whether the proceedings can be transferred without
notice to the assessee and the Division Bench adopted the
view that an opportunity must be given to the assessee
too. In the instant matter, since all the proceedings
are pending before different authorities either at Mumbai
or Aurangabad, the same are being clubbed together and
taken at Mumbai.

¶51

4]We do not find any infirmity in the decision taken
by the Revenue. The petitioners are insisting for
transferring all the matters with Aurangabad authorities.

¶52

It is not at the choice of the assessee to decide and fix
the forum. Accepting such a view will amount to accepting
the principle of forum choice. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, we do not propose to cause
interference in the matter in view of the decision taken
by the Sales Tax authorities and communicated to the

¶53

petitioners on 27.3.2014. The writ petitions stand
rejected. The order of status quo granted earlier stands
vacated in view of the fact that the proceedings are

¶54

 WP 2133/14 & six others

¶55

- 5 -

¶56

time-bound and are required to be decided before
31.3.2015. All the contentions raised in the petitions

¶57

are specifically kept open for consideration by the
authorities.

¶58

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)

¶59

ndk/c841429

M/S. Kalyan Infratech Pvt.Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kalyan Infratech Pvt.Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Babanrao Hariharrao Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Megha Chandrakant Kale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Ashokrao Ghatole and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Arya Cotton Co. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sarjerao Shankarrao Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and and Ors.

Prabhakar Dagdu Borkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.