Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bayer Crop Science Limited And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 21 December, 2020

Author: Anuja Prabhudessai

Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai

P.H. Jayani                                         32 IA3823.2020.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3823 OF 2020
                                  IN
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 13655 OF 2018

Bayer Crop Science Limited and anr.                   ....Applicants

In the matter between :-
Bayer Crop Science Limited and anr.                   ....Petitioners
           v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.                     .... Respondents


Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. counsel a/w. Mr. Saket Mone,
Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Mr. Jagdish Gage, Mr. Subit Chakrabarti
i/b. Vidhii Partners for the Applicants/Petitioners.
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the State.


                         CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 21st DECEMBER, 2020.

P. C. :-

. The Petitioners herein have sought stay to the effect and implementation of the impugned Demand Notice dated 30/12/2015 passed by Respondent No.4 and order dated 06/03/2018 passed by Respondent No.2.

2. Mr. Vineet Naik, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners have already deposited Rs.10,62,75,000/- in the 1/3 P.H. Jayani 32 IA3823.2020.doc year 2011 based on the assessment made by the Collector, Thane. He submits that based on the Audit Report dated 25/02/2016, the additional Demand has been made for deficit of Rs.7,96,25,000/-. Attachment of property premises situated at Kalpataru Park City, Bayer (India) Limited Compound, Kolshet Road, has led to an apprehension of further precipitative steps.

3. The records indicate that the Petitioners had paid Rs.10,62,75,000/- (Ten Crores Sixty Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) towards unearned income based on the assessment of the Collector, Thane. Subsequent demand is based solely on the Audit Report of the year 2016. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that they were not heard while raising demand for additional deficit of Rs.7,96,25,000/- and that the Petitioners were not even furnished the copy of the Audit Report.

4. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, Respondents are directed not to take further coercive steps pursuant to impugned Demand Notice dated 30/12/2015 and Notice of Attachment dated 02/12/2020, till the next date of hearing. Reply, if any, to be filed on 2/3 P.H. Jayani 32 IA3823.2020.doc or before the next date of hearing with copy to the other side.

5. Stand over to 18/01/2021.

6. This order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretary / Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. Preeti H. Jayani Digitally signed by Preeti H. Jayani Date: 2020.12.22 12:30:15 +0530 (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) 3/3