Disposed

Sumati Prakash Shiradhonkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Sept 2014WP/7204/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed regarding incorrect computation of 1% cess by MIDC. Court directed government departments to determine construction cost based on DSR rates. Petitioner to pay computed amount within four weeks of demand notice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to determine construction cost within three months and communicate demand to petitioner.

Sumati Prakash Shiradhonkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp7204.14.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7204 OF 2014

¶5

Mrs. Sumati w/o Prakash Shiradhonkar .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. S. V. Natu, advocate for petitioner. Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶9

Mr. S. S. Dande, advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶10

=====

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 22^nd SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Grievance of petitioner is as regards computation of 1% cess on the cost of construction payable by the industrial unit. Computation of cess is to be worked out by observing the procedure prescribed under Government Resolution dated 17.06.2010. As per the policy prescribed in the aforesaid resolution, the Inspector General of Registration is authorised to determine the rates for computation of 1% cess leviable under the Act of 1996. The Inspector General of Registration has informed that the rates for the purpose of computation of 1% cess cannot be prescribed unless the Public Works Department provides data in respect of DSR rates applicable for the relevant year. The matter has thus been referred to Public Works Department for computation of cost of construction in accordance with DSR rates applicable during the relevant period. In the absence of prescription of rates in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 17.06.2010, MIDC is collecting the amount taking into consideration the ready reckoner

¶14

wp7204.14.doc

¶15

¶16

rates prescribed for the transaction of transfer of plots. The procedure adopted by MIDC is not within the contemplation of the Act of 1996 or the rules framed thereunder. This Court, on 25.08.2014, directed the Inspector General of Registration, Maharashtra State, Pune as well as Public Works Department to inform the timeframe required for taking decision as regards computation of cost of construction incurred by the concerned industry. However, inspite of directions issued by this Court, concerned respondents have not furnished any information.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition can be disposed of by issuing direction to respondent nos. 2 and 5 to determine the cost of construction incurred by industry so as to facilitate computation of 1% cess in accordance with the Act of 1996 and the rules framed thereunder in 1998, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. On determination of rates it would be open for the MIDC to work out 1% cess recoverable from the industry. The MIDC after receiving report from the Inspector General of Registration as well as Public Works Department shall determine the amount and communicate the petitioner calling upon the petitioner - industry to deposit the amount within a period of four weeks from such decision. Petitioner shall be required to deposit the amount computed on the basis of report of the Inspector General of Registration as well as Public Works Division within reasonable time from the date of receipt of demand notice from M.I.D.C.

¶18

With the directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

wp7204.14.doc

¶20

¶21

( V. K. JADHAV ) JUDGE

¶22

( R. M. BORDE )

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

dyb

Sumati Prakash Shiradhonkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumati Prakash Shiradhonkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajaram Dhondiram Havale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Annay Bhrashtachar Nivaran Janhit Samiti, Ahmednagar Vs the Union of India and Another

Mukund Balvirsinh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Apang Karmachari Mahasangh through Member Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Bhikaji Pawar Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vaijapur, Dist.Aurangabad

Madhav Vithoba Ghodke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another