In a writ petition challenging tax liability implications, the High Court refused to entertain the petition, holding that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be used to protect public revenue or assist the petitioner to avoid tax when others are primarily responsible.
The writ petition was refused and dismissed without further order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
901-WP.2978.2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2978 OF 2017
Shivlila Suresh Patil } Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra } and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Deepak K. Bapat with Ms. Sonali Bapat for the petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke-AGP for State.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH. D. NAIK, JJ.
DATED :- APRIL 17, 2018
P.C. :-
Page 1 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
901-WP.2978.2017.doc
legitimately for the recovery of the taxes, will avoid the consequences in law.
(PRAKASH.D.NAIK, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should entertain a writ petition to indirectly alter the outcome of a pending tax appeal involving third party liability.
SHIVLILASURESH PATIL
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
S. C DHARMADHIKARI
PRAKASH D NAIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
