Disposed

Idea Cellular Limited, Nagpur through Its Authorized Representative Shri Girish M. Pawar v. City of Nagpur Corporation, Thorugh Its Commissioner, Nagpur and 2 Others

Bombay HC21 Jul 2016WP/2456/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning tax demand, the High Court allowed the petitioner to file a representation with documents to substantiate claims regarding advertising locations. The Court granted an opportunity of hearing before deciding the total amount due and interest.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file representation within three weeks with documents; Corporation to decide amount due after hearing.

Idea Cellular Limited, Nagpur through… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2107wp2456.15

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2456 OF 2015

¶5

(Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. City of Nagpur Corporation and others)

¶6

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for petitioner. ' Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 3.

¶8

Shri B.M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.2.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶10

DATED : JULY 21, 2016

¶11

Heard for some time.

¶12

The petitioner has deposited amount of Rs.16,58,295/- only. Total demand by Corporation is for Rs.33,58,295/- as on 29/4/2013. It, therefore, appears that approximately 50% of the amount has been deposited by the petitioner.

¶13

Adv. Puranik for respondent nos.1 and 3 has pointed out that in addition to this amount, interest on earlier amount as also for later period is to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner's attempt is to point out that

¶15

2107wp2456.15

¶16

2/3

¶17

most of the advertisements are outside their Centres and, therefore, do not qualify as advertisements and are not, therefore, exigible. Adv. Puranik disputes this.

¶18

Being disputed question of fact, we are not in a position to adjudicate upon it. Our attention has been invited to judgment dated 15/11/2014 delivered in Writ Petition No. 5959/2013. There after hearing respective Counsel, as there was some factual dispute, the Court permitted respondent Corporation to hear objections and to take suitable decision in the matter.

¶19

In the present matter, petitioner has already shown bonafides. In this situation, we grant petitioner leave to make appropriate representation within three weeks from today with necessary documents in support of its contentions. If such representation is made, respondent Corporation shall after extending petitioner opportunity of hearing take suitable decision on the total amount due and payable within next three weeks. The question of interest, if any, shall also be looked into at that time.

¶20

The amount in deposit with Corporation shall be appropriated towards the tax amount ultimately found due at the end of this exercise.

¶21

With the above directions and keeping all

¶22

2107wp2456.15

¶23

3/3

¶24

rival contentions open, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

khj

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.

¶29

Uploaded by : Uploaded on : Kamal H. Jeswani 22/07/2016 Private Secretary

Idea Cellular Limited, Nagpur through Its Authorized Representative Shri Girish M. Pawar v. City of Nagpur Corporation, Thorugh Its Commissioner, Nagpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idea Cellular Limited, Nagpur through Its Authorized Representative Shri Girish M. Pawar v. City of Nagpur Corporation, Thorugh Its Commissioner, Nagpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. S.T. Dharmale (Head Master, Kashibai Agrawal Vidyalya) and 3 Others Vs Education Officer (Sec.) Z.P. Amravati and 1 Others

Ramkrishna Sakharam Sahakate and Another Vs the Collector, Nagpur and 2 Others

Prafullkumar S/O. Shrikrishnadas Binzani and Another Vs Shri. a. K. Gandhi, President of Nagpur Shikshan Mandal and Another

Smt. Neeta W/O Amrut Chawdagor and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary Department of Home, Mumbai and Others

Aniruddha Vyankatrao Kendre and Others Vs the Zilla Parishad, Gondia through Its Chief Executive Officer and Others

Young Engineers Education Society Thr. President Devendra Pise Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Higher and Technical Education Mumbai and Others