Allowed

M/S Komal Stone Crusher, Yavatmal through Proprietor Shri Pawan S/O Nandlalji Panpaliya v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of Industry, Energy and Labour, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC7 Sept 2023WP/838/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) allowed a writ petition regarding the refund of royalty claims under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. The court relied on a prior judgment in Writ Petition No. 19 of 2018, holding that the one-year time limit in the 2011 Circular applied only to major minerals, not minor minerals. Consequently, the respondent was directed to refund the r

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to refund royalty paid by petitioner in accordance with Clause 5.5 of Government Resolution dated 30.03.2007; claim not to be rejected on ground of delay.

M/S Komal Stone Crusher, Yavatmal through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:13622-DB

¶2

37-A-WP-838-2021(J).odt 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 838 of 2021

¶5

M/s. Komal Stone Crusher .. PETITIONER

¶6

(Komal Construction Company) The Eligible Industrial Unit under the package Scheme of Incentives-2007, situated at Survey No.7/2, Mouza-Shripur, Tah.Arni, District Yavatmal, Through its Proprietor-Shri Pawan s/o Nandlalji Panpaliya, Aged about Major, Occ. Business, Office at Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.

¶7

Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, .. RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Department of Industry, Energy and Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

¶8

The Director of Industry, Opposite Mantralaya, Kolaba, Mumbai.

¶9

The Joint Director of Industry, Regional Office of Industries, Amravati.

¶10

The General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Yavatmal, Tahsil and District Yavatmal.

¶11

Shri A. B. Moon, Advocate for petitioner.

¶12

Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶13

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 7^th SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶15

Rule. Ms N. P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader

¶16

waives service of notice for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner sought refund of royalty claimed under the

¶18

Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. By referring the Circular dated

¶19

37-A-WP-838-2021(J).odt 2

¶20

17.06.2011, the claim was rejected by the District Industries Centre on the ground that the claim was not submitted within the specified time. The period of such claim is from 2012-13 to 2017-18, annually. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 19 of 2018 (M/s. Shri Balaji Buildicon vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.) with connected writ petitions, the letter dated 29.11.2019 refusing to refund the amount of royalty to the petitioner is liable to be quashed. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties in the aforesaid backdrop.

¶21

Perusal of the judgment in M/s. Shri Balaji Buildicon (supra) indicates that the Circular dated 17.06.2011 which is the basis for rejection of the claim for refund has been held to apply to major minerals. In the present case, the petitioner is concerned with manufacture of minor minerals. In the aforesaid decision, it has been held that as per Clause 5.5 of the Government Resolution dated 30.03.2007 there was no time limit fixed for seeking refund and the time prescribed under the Government Circular dated 17.06.2011 was applicable only to units concerned with major minerals. We therefore find that the issue stands decided in favour of the petitioners.

¶22

Hence, for reasons recorded in Writ Petition No.19 of 2018,

¶23

dated 18.08.2023 in the case of M/s. Shri Balaji Buildicon, with

¶24

37-A-WP-838-2021(J).odt 3

¶25

connected writ petitions, the respondents are directed to refund the royalty that was paid by the petitioner in accordance with Clause 5.5 of the Government Resolution dated 30.03.2007, if the petitioner is otherwise found entitled. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the application was made beyond the period of one year.

¶26

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to

¶27

costs.

¶28

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶29

Andurkar.

M/S Komal Stone Crusher, Yavatmal through Proprietor Shri Pawan S/O Nandlalji Panpaliya v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of Industry, Energy and Labour, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Komal Stone Crusher, Yavatmal through Proprietor Shri Pawan S/O Nandlalji Panpaliya v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of Industry, Energy and Labour, Mumbai and Others

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

Shri Saibaba Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Secretary, Amravati and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Others

Shri Saibaba Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Secretary Amravati and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Others

Philomina D/O Joseph Pichappilly Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secy., Urban Devp. and 3 Ors.

Manish S/O Amol Pusadekar, Since Minor Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Amol S/O Wasudeorao Pusadekar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Dept. of Tribal Welfare and Social Justice, Mumbai and Anr.

Smt. Lata Wd/O. Arun Nandanwar Vs Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli Thr. Chief Executive Officer and Another

Smt. Ujjawala Wd/O. Suresh Durge and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and Another