Disposed

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2016CAW/665/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil application, the High Court directed the Revenue not to initiate coercive measures for tax recovery pending the Sales Tax Tribunal's decision on a stay application, while expediting that decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Revenue not to initiate coercive tax recovery measures pending Tribunal's stay order; directed Tribunal to decide stay within two months.

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2016 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7400 OF 2015

¶5

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., Raigad .… Applicant In the matter between Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., Raigad .… Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prakash Shah a/w. Mr. Rahul Thakar and Mr. Jas Sanghavi, i/by M/s. PDS Legal, for the Applicant-Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special Counsel, for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶9

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

¶10

DATE : 14TH JUNE, 2016.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

It is fairly stated by Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the Applicant-Petitioner, that during the pendency of the Petition, the first Appellate Authority has passed an order. Since the Applicant-Petitioner is aggrieved by this order, it has preferred a further Appeal to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. In that Appeal, it has also applied for stay by filing a written application. He, therefore, submits that he has instructions not to press this Civil Application. However, it is submitted

¶13

1/2

¶14

CAW-665-16.doc

¶15

that, till the Tribunal applies its mind to the stay application and passes an order, after hearing both sides, the Revenue be directed not to initiate any coercive measures to recover the tax.

¶16

After having approached the Tribunal and sought a stay, pending the hearing of the Appeal, we have no doubt in our mind that till the Tribunal hears both sides and passes appropriate order on the stay application, the Revenue will not precipitate the matter by initiating any coercive measures. However, to ensure that the stay application is moved by the Applicant-Petitioner expeditiously, we direct that the Tribunal shall pass the necessary order on the stay application within a period of two months from today.

¶17

All contentions on merits of the stay application as also the Appeal are kept open.

¶18

Civil Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶19

Needless to clarify, that in the event the Applicant-Petitioner desires an early hearing of the Appeal itself, the Applicant-Petitioner is free to make a requisite application before the Tribunal.

¶20

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶21

2/2

¶22

CAW-665-16.doc

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Osho International Foundation Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-Iii

Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Central Borad of Cetification and Anr.

M/S. Rajshree Tractors Proprietor Mr. Rajendra G. Patil Vs the Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai and Ors.

Mr. Akshay Shrirang Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Optech Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishal Ranganath Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.