Allowed

Homes 4 U Realtors v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2022WP/3999/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding assessment orders treating the proprietor as an unregistered dealer under Maharashtra VAT and Central Sales Tax Acts, the Court, upon accepting an affidavit showing an attempt to register, set aside the impugned orders, directed a de-novo consideration by the assessing officer with retrospective effect, and mandated a personal hearing with advance notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 31st March 2020 and 16th March 2021 set aside. Petitioner permitted to register as registered dealer with retrospective effect. Assessing officer directed to consider application

Homes 4 U Realtors Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2022.09.13 14:31:03 +0530 1 (405) wp-3999.21.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3999 OF 2021

¶4

Homes 4 U Realtors
Through Rohan Anirudha Seolekar
Proprietor of Petitioner: Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and anr.: Respondents

¶7

Mr. Deepak Bapat a/w Ms. Sonali Bapat and Mr. Mahesh Bhagwat for
Petitioner.

¶8

Smt. S D Vyas, Counsel “B” Panel for Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
A. S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER 2022.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 14th
December 2021, Petitioner has filed further affidavit affirmed on 5th
February 2022. To the affidavit is annexed the copies of documents which
certainly indicate that Petitioner had made attempts to obtain registration
certificate under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and under the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

¶12

2Petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders dated 31st March

¶13

2020 and 16th March 2021 under which Petitioner has been treated as un-
registered dealer.

¶14

lgc

¶15

1/3

¶16

2 (405) wp-3999.21.doc

¶17

3Having considered these documents annexed to further
affidavit dated 5th February 2022, learned AGP in fairness agreed that
Petitioner has made an attempt to register and therefore Court may set
aside impugned orders dated 31st March 2020 and 16th March 2021 and
remand the matter for de-novo consideration.

¶18

4Therefore, impugned orders dated 31st March 2020 and 16th
March 2021 are set aside. We direct the assessing officer to consider
Petitioner’s application for registration and also permit Petitioner to register
himself as registered dealer with retrospective effect.

¶19

5If the assessing officer is satisfied that Petitioner had made
attempts to register, then the assessing officer shall pass order as Petitioner
was registered dealer for the relevant assessment year and also consider all
circulars issued before passing assessment order.

¶20

6The assessing officer shall give personal hearing to Petitioner
after giving at least 7 working days advance notice so that Petitioner can
present his case and explain the sincere attempts made by Petitioner to get
himself as registered dealer under the provisions of Maharashtra Value
Added Tax, 2002 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

¶21

lgc

¶22

2/3

¶23

3 (405) wp-3999.21.doc

¶24

7The assessing officer may thereafter pass such orders as he may

¶25

deem fit in accordance with law.

¶26

8We clarify that we have not made any observation on the

¶27

merits of the matter.

¶28

9Petition stands disposed.No order as to costs.

¶29

 (A. S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶30

(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶31

lgc

¶32

3/3

Homes 4 U Realtors v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Homes 4 U Realtors v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rbl Bank Ltd. ( Earlier Known as the Ratnakar Bank Ltd. ) Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sai Kripa Confectioneries Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sunil Gupta and Anr. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Shailesh Gupta and Ors. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Ors.

Haresh Govindram Abhichandani Vs Union of India and Anr.