Disposed

Kakad Chambrs Offices and Business Premises Co. Op Society Ltd. v. Union of India and 3 Others

Bombay HC12 Jul 2022WP/3029/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding maintenance charges payable by the Income Tax Department to the petitioner society for occupied premises. The department agreed to pay dues and consider a refund claim for duplicate property tax bills.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Income Tax Department to receive maintenance charge details and pay the legitimate amount within eight weeks; direct the petitioner to apply to the Corporation for a refund of duplicate pro

Kakad Chambrs Offices and Business Premises Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Bombay HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

44.WPNo.30292019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3029 OF 2019

¶5

Kakad Chambers Offies Business Premises Co-op. Soiiety Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Union of India Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. R. L. Gonsalves i/b. Adv. E. A. Gonsalves, Advoiate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma a/w. Mr. Vikas T. Khandhandani, Advoiate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

Mr. Sagar Patil, Advoiate for the Respondent No.4.

¶9

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶10

DATED : JULY 12, 2022

¶11

P.C.

¶12

It appears that the Iniome Tax Department is liable to pay maintenanie iharges to the petitioner of the premises oiiupied and not the property taxes and serviie iharges in respeit of the premises. The petitioner was direited to give details of amount of maintenanie iharges (not property taxes) that are said to be due in respeit of premises at Kakad Chamber oiiupied by the Iniome Tax Department under order dated 11^th January 2022.

¶13

The learned Advoiate for the petitioner submits that the details of the same are given to the Iniome Tax Department under iommuniiation dated 17^th January

1/2

Gaikwad RD

44.WPNo.30292019.doc

The learned Counsel for the Iniome Tax Department is not aware of the same.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the Iniome Tax Department, on instruitions, makes a statement that the Iniome Tax Department is liable to pay maintenanie iharges to the petitioner and in past also the same has been paid. Whatever legitimate amount is due and payable as maintenanie iharges towards the premises at Kakad Chamber, the same would be paid to the petitioner preferably within eight weeks from today.

¶19

The said statement is aiiepted. The petitioner shall onie again give the details of the maintenanie iharges only ilaimed by it to the Iniome Tax Department preferably within eight days from today. On reieipt of the same, the Iniome Tax Department shall verify and pay the legitimate amount of maintenanie iharges to the petitioner within eight weeks thereafter.

¶20

It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that some of the property taxes are paid to the Corporation by the petitioner. In spite of that fresh bill is issued for the same. In fait, the petitioner is entitled to refund for the same. The petitioner shall make appliiation to Corporation. The Corporation shall deiide the same on its own merits within three months from the date of reieipt of appliiation.

¶21

The writ petition is aiiordingly disposed of. No iosts.

¶22

2/2

¶23

Digitally signed by RAJU RAJUDATTATRAYAGAIKWAD DATTATRAYAGAIKWADDate:2022.07.14 11:11:58 +0530

¶24

Gaikwad RD

Kakad Chambrs Offices and Business Premises Co. Op Society Ltd. v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakad Chambrs Offices and Business Premises Co. Op Society Ltd. v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita W/O. Kedar Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Dattatray Balaso Tengale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Farukhkhan Ikbal Pathan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Anr.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Naresh Maniram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept and Ors.

Shashikant Ratnu Kinjalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.