New Era Enterprises vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

New Era Enterprises vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without any costs order; parties relegated to the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal in accordance with law; Petitioner's deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- with accrued interest, if any, directed to be transferred by the Registry to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal-V), State of Maharashtra, with the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders on the amount after hearing both parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act as existing on 6 March 2019 is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Projects vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. has struck down the very provision, the relief of declaring Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act unconstitutional stands worked out.

Ratio / Principle

The parties are relegated to the Appellate Authority for deciding the Appeal in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to transfer the amount deposited by the Petitioner in this Court, together with interest, if any, accrued thereon, to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal-V), State of Maharashtra; the Appellate Authority to make appropriate orders concerning this amount after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ., disposed of New Era Enterprises' Writ Petition No. 304 of 2024, which had sought declaration that Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act as existing on 6 March 2019 was unconstitutional and its striking down. Following counsel's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in United Projects vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2025) 137 GSTR 496 (SC), whereby the very provision was struck down, the Court found the relief on constitutionality worked out and relegated the parties to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending Appeal in accordance with law. On the question of the Petitioner's deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- made in this Court, the Court accepted the State's submission that the Appellate Authority retains discretion on pre-deposit, and directed the Registry to transfer the deposit, together with accrued interest, if any, to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal-V), State of Maharashtra, leaving the Appellate Authority to make appropriate orders concerning the amount after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing. Petition disposed of without any costs order; all concerned to act on an authenticated copy.

908-WP-304-2024 (OS).DOCX

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA PALLAVI WARGAONKAR MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2025.12.10 11:07:09 +0530

Pallavi

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 304 OF 2024 New Era Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors. ...Respondents ______________________________________________________

Mr. Rahul Thakar i/b. C.B. Thakar a/w Yash Dethe for Petitioner.

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P . for Respondent No.1.

CORAM : M.S. Sonak &

Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED : 9 December 2025

P.C.:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner had inter alia sought for the relief of declaring Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act as existing on 6 March 2019 as unconstitutional and for striking down the same.

Mr Thakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner now relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Projects vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.¹ and submits that this very provision is struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the relief to this extent, stands worked out.

1 (2025) 137 GSTR 496 (SC)

Page 1 of 2

908-WP-304-2024 (OS).DOCX

The learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties are now to be relegated to the Appellate Authority for deciding the Appeal in accordance with law. We order accordingly. Mr Thakar submits that the Petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- in this Court and the same may be ordered to be refunded. Ms Chavan submits that this amount may be sent to the Appellate Authority because even now, there is a discretion vested in the said Appellate Authority with regard to pre-deposit. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to transfer the amount deposited by the Petitioner in this Court, together with interest, if any, that may have accrued on this amount to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal-V) State of Maharashtra. The Appellate Authority to make appropriate orders concerning this amount after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

This Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any costs order.

All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

(Advait M. Sethna, J)

(M.S. Sonak, J.)

Page 2 of 2