Disposed

Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2014WP/7357/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 406 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. Liberty was granted to prefer an appeal upon deposit of the tax demanded, with a stay on enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer appeal; stay on enforcement conditioned on depositing tax and interest within 14 days.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

dssherla

923- wp-7357-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7357 OF 2014

¶7

Indian Oil Corporation Limited ..Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms Neeta Jain, Mr. Sunil Gangan and Mr. Jayesh Mestry i/b RMG Law Associates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. A.G. Damle for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 6 August 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The petition is directed against the impugned order dated 23 July 2014 made by Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation demanding from the petitioner Local Body Tax in an amount of Rs.5,19,45,071/- alongwith interest apart from penalty which is five times the tax demand ,i.e., Rs.25,97,00,000/-.

¶13

2] Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy to file an appeal under Section 406 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (the Act).

1 of 3

dssherla

923- wp-7357-14

3] In view of above, we dispose of this petition with the following order :

¶19

(A) The petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order upto 14 August 2014;

¶20

(B) If the petitioner deposits the amount of Local Body Tax demanded by Respondent No. 2 under the impugned order dated 23 July 2014 i.e. Rs.5,19,45,071/- together with interest (but not the penalty amount), then the petitioner's appeal shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority without insistence on any further deposits or by application of the bar of limitation. Such amount shall have to be deposited by the Petitioner by 14 August 2014;

¶21

(C) Subject to the above, upto 14 August 2014 and during the pendency of such appeal, there shall be a stay on the enforcement of the impugned order.

¶22

4] It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy sought to be raised in the petition and all contentions are kept open.

2 of 3

dssherla

923- wp-7357-14

5] This petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrc Logistics India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd.

Vinod Prakash Goel and Another Vs M/S. K and M Sheltors Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Pradeep Prahlad Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radhakrishnan Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Radhakrishnan Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Sandeep Singh Bhardwaj Vs Tower Capital and Securities Pvt. Ltd. Nd Anr.