Allowed

Tahnee Heights Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. the Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2016WP/9306/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed impugned orders for failing to apply binding precedents. The Deputy Commissioner was held in error for not following judgments while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside; interest to follow Division Bench judgments; respondents to pay costs of Rs.50,000.

Tahnee Heights Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

suresh

¶2

17-WP-9306.2015.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9306 OF 2015

¶4

Tahnee Heights Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. .... Petitioners Vs. The Union of India & Others .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by M/s. PDS Legal for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Mr. Sham Walve for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶8

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : AUGUST 08, 2016

¶10

P.C:

¶11

Having heard both sides and on perusing the writ

¶12

petition and the annexures thereto, including the impugned order dated 24-8-2015 and the further order passed on 30-9-2015/8-10-2015, we are of the opinion that the controversy is squarely covered by the Judgment delivered by this Court on 18-7-2016 in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2015 { M/s.

¶13

Garden Silk Mills Limited Vs. The Union of India & Others }.

¶14

17-WP-9306.2015.doc

¶15

suresh

¶16

It is also covered by a Division Bench order passed in the case of the very petitioners. To our mind, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was in complete error in not following and applying these binding Judgments of this Court. They have not been followed and applied on the specious plea that the Revenue has carried the matter in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and it is pending therein. We do not approve of such a stand of the Revenue/respondents for the simple reason that a matter being pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not mean the binding effect of this Court's order is lost or wiped out. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax-II (Refund), Mumbai/respondent No.3 to this writ petition, was in total error in refusing to abide by the binding Judgment and Order of this Court.

¶17

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The interest shall follow in terms of the two Division Bench Judgments. In the light of the fact that the Division Bench Judgments were pointed

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

suresh 17-WP-9306.2015.doc

¶20

out and in the case of the very petitioners, the refusal to apply and follow them by the further order of 30-9-2015/8-10-2015 justifies imposition of costs. The respondents shall pay the costs, quantified at Rs.50,000/-. The costs shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The concerned Commissioner is at liberty to recover the amount from the erring officials, including respondent No.3.

¶21

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶22

Page 3 of 3

Tahnee Heights Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. the Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahnee Heights Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. the Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

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

Shaila Suresh Shinde Vs Urja Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

M. B. Construction and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Kumar Poddar S/O Late Ram Karan Poddar Vs Karma Industries Ltd. and 5 Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate, Kolhapur Vs Vishwasrao Naik Ssk Ltd., U - II

The Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate Vs Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

Ms. Vinita Lakhotia, Director of M/S. Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Sahar, Mumbai.