Dismissed

Akhil Bhartatiya Grahak Panchayat v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2017PIL/197/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to direct prosecution of defaulting dealers for tax evasion under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958. Court held petition infructuous due to the passage of the GST Act and subsequent changes in tax collection mechanisms, and disposed of the matter without issuing directions.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without issuing any directions by the court.

Akhil Bhartatiya Grahak Panchayat Vs Union of India and… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Prs 1

¶2

41 pil 197-10-c

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 197 OF 2010

¶5

Akhil Bhartatiya Grahak Panchayat, Nashik Mahanagar

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport and ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.V.P.Malvankar,APP for Respondent Nos.2 to 6.

¶10

CORAM : V.M.KANADE AND

¶11

P.R.BORA, JJ. DATE : 13^th FEBRUARY, 2017.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The Petitioner has filed this Petition, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶14

(A) That this Hon'ble Court be Pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to act and prosecute the defaulting dealers on the complaint made by the petitioner on 2^nd March, 2009 and 12^th July, 2009 which are marked as Exhibits G and H respectively and pass appropriate orders.

¶15

(B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents herein to constitute a committee for reconciliation of the invoices submitted to respondent no.4 in sale transactions of motor vehicles with the invoices submitted to respondent no.2 for sale of such vehicles in the said transactions and to report to this Hon'ble Court about the illegal evasion of tax

¶16

41 pil 197-10-c

¶17

Prs 2

¶18

payable to respondent nos. 2 and 6 under the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958.

¶19

(C) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents herein to recover the evaded tax payable to respondent nos. 2 and 6 under the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 from the defaulters.”

¶20

We are informed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State that as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act has been passed, the present Petition has practically become infructuous. It is also submitted that RTO has now started collecting Sales Tax on the full value of the vehicle. The Petition, therefore, practically has become infructuous and as such we are not inclined to issue directions, which are sought by the Petitioners. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶21

(P.R.BORA,J.)

¶22

(V.M.KANADE,J.)

Akhil Bhartatiya Grahak Panchayat v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Bhartatiya Grahak Panchayat v. Union of India 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

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Umesh Bajirao Khandekar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Umesh Bajirao Khandekar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Ors.

Janhit Manch and 2 Ors. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 16 Ors.

Uttam Banduji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Social Welfare Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Chandrakant Gulab Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Gov. of Maha. and Ors.

K.A. Jabir Binu and Anr. Vs Medical Council of India and Ors.

Mahadev Viththlsa Katave and 8 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Soni Mahendra @ Rajesh Nag and Ors.

Matoshri Ramabai Ambedkar Vidyarthi Vastigraha Trust Vs State of Maha. through Its Principal Secretary of Social Welfare and Special Asstt. Dept. and Ors.

Sou. Sandhya Vijay Sansare Vs Mr. Vijay Samwel Sansare