Dismissed

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2018WP/3203/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking refund of tax deposits made during a search. The Court accepted the Revenue's position, accepted the petitioner's withdrawal, and granted liberty to raise contentions before assessing authorities for relevant financial years.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed as withdrawn with liberty to urge contentions before assessing authorities for Financial Years 2011-12 to 2016-17.

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

3203-17-WP-25=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3203 OF 2017

¶5

M/s. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. .. Petitioners v/s.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rohan Shah a/w Divya Jaswant, Shilpa Songar for the petitioners Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special Counsel a/w Mr. S.B. Gore, AGP for the respondents

¶8

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.J. DATED : 14^th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks refund of amounts deposited with the Revenue under Central Sales Tax Act, 1960 read with Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (Acts). This on the ground that this deposit done during the course of a search was not justified, as it was contrary to the provisions of the Acts.

¶11

Mr. Sonpal, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that the amounts of which refund is being sought were deposited by the petitioners on filing revised returns and / or regular return under the Acts. Thus, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. However, he also very fairly states that the assessments of the revised / regular returns of the petitioners for the Financial Years 2010-11 to

¶12

Digitally signed by Uday Shivaji Uday Jagtap Date: Shivaji 2018.09.18 11:19:46 Jagtap +0530

1 of 2

3203-17-WP-25=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

2016-17 are in progress. On instructions, he further states that the assessment would be done expeditiously and if on assessment the petitioners are found entitled to refund, the same shall be granted in accordance with law.

¶17

We accept the above statement on behalf of the Revenue.

¶18

In view of the above, Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, on instructions, seeks to withdraw this petition. However, he seeks liberty to urge the contentions raised herein before the Authorities, who are in the process of assessing the revised returns / regular returns for the Financial Years 2011-12 to 2016-17.

¶19

Liberty as sought is granted.

¶20

In the above view, the petition is disposed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶21

All the contentions of the parties are left open.

¶22

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶23

2 of 2

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Commissioner of Service Tax 1 Mumbai Vs Mittal Towers Pcs Ltd.

The Commissioner of Service Tax-Vii, Vs M/S Blue Star Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Hi Tech Office Systems

The Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Vs Pramukh Poly Products

Evonik Catalyst Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Monarch Catalyst Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Paresh Patel Vs Union of India and Anr.