Disposed

Bajaj Finsery Limited v. the State of Maharashtra, Thru. Dept of Rural Development and Revenue Dept. and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2018CP/440/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging tax demands and bills. It directed the respondent authorities to submit a speaking order after giving a hearing, granted liberty to submit representation, and stayed coercive recovery steps pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit representation within four weeks; respondent to decide within four months with speaking order; no coercive recovery till decided.

Bajaj Finsery Limited Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 WP 4567-09 @ Others.odt-903

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4567 OF 2009

¶5

ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4567 OF 2009

¶6

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4530 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.360 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4530 OF 2009

¶7

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4565 OF 2009 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4569 OF 2009 ALONG WITH

¶8

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.440 OF 2017 ALONG WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.441 OF 2017

¶9

Bajaj Finserv Limited. ] … Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] … Respondents

¶12

Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. P. B. Kulkarni for Petitioner

¶13

Mrs. Reena Salunke, Addl. G. P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar i/b Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶14

URS 1 of 4 This order is corrected as per 'Speaking to the Minutes' of the order dated 24/08/2018.

¶15

2 WP 4567-09 @ Others.odt-903

¶16

CORAM :- SHANTANU KEMKAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE :- AUGUST 21, 2018

¶17

P. C. :-

¶18

Parties through their Counsel.

¶19

By filing the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks direction to the Respondents to withdraw the notices of demand as well as the bills raised against them. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government has framed the rules in regard to computation of the taxes under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960. The grievance of the Petitioner is that before raising of the bills, no opportunity of hearing was ever given to the Petitioners in regard to this computation of the taxes. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the computation which has been introduced by way of framing of rules, requires to be applied retrospectively from the year 2011.

¶20

URS 2 of 4 This order is corrected as per 'Speaking to the Minutes' of the order dated 24/08/2018.

¶21

3 WP 4567-09 @ Others.odt-903

¶22

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned AGP and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, we dispose of these petitions with liberty to the Petitioner to submit a detailed presentation with supporting documents before the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. On receipt of the same, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall examine the grounds as may be raised by the Petitioner in representation and shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner to submit representation within four weeks from today. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall decide the said representation within four months from the date of receipt of the said representation. With the aforesaid direction, the petitions stand disposed of. Till the representation is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount for which the bills have been raised.

¶23

As a consequence, Civil Applications and Contempt

¶24

Petitions also stand disposed of.

¶25

URS 3 of 4 This order is corrected as per 'Speaking to the Minutes' of the order dated 24/08/2018.

¶26

4 WP 4567-09 @ Others.odt-903

¶27

All the contentions are kept open.

¶28

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶29

URS 4 of 4 This order is corrected as per 'Speaking to the Minutes' of the order dated 24/08/2018.

Bajaj Finsery Limited v. the State of Maharashtra, Thru. Dept of Rural Development and Revenue Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Finsery Limited v. the State of Maharashtra, Thru. Dept of Rural Development and Revenue Dept. and Anr.

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

Dr. Hemant Kshirsagar and Anr. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of India and Ors.

Dhavalchindra Balkrishna Doshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Anjali Dinkar Datar Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bajaj Finserv Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajaj Finserv Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajaj Finsery Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thru. Dept of Rural Development and Revenue Dept. and Anr.