Bombay High Court
Revent Precision Engineering Ltd Known ... vs State Of Maharashtra Throu. ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
30-WP-5931-2025.DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5931 OF 2025
Revent Precision Engineering Ltd
Known As Amtek Auto Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra
thr. Commissioner of State Tax
Goods & Services Tax Dept & Anr ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr Love Gupta, (through VC), with Ms Saumya Pandey & Ms
Pallavi Singh, for the Petitioner.
______________________________________________________
CORAM: M.S. Sonak &
Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED: 09 September 2025
PC:-
1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that service has been effected upon the Respondents and she produces necessary endorsement of receipt of copies. However, today, there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents. AMOL PREMNATH 2. Accordingly, we issue notice to the Respondents JADHAV Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH returnable on 30 September 2025. In addition to the usual JADHAV Date: 2025.09.10 20:30:09 +0530 mode of service, private service/Humdast is allowed. The Petitioner to file affidavit of service.
Page 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:21:20 :::30-WP-5931-2025.DOCX
3. The notice to indicate that subject to constraints of time, an endeavour shall be made to dispose of this Petition finally at the admission stage.
4. The Petitioner relies upon the law laid down in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt Ltd through the Authorised Signatory Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd through The Director & Ors1 and Electrosteel Steel Ltd (Now M/s ESL Steel Ltd) Vs Ispat Carrier Pvt Ltd 2 to submit that once a resolution plan is approved by the authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the successful resolution applicant should not be burdened with any undecided or unexpected claims. She points out that in the present case, the Petitioner is the successful resolution applicant and therefore, the demands now being made or enforced against the Petitioner are untenable and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said two decisions.
5. Accordingly, until the next date, we grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) which reads as follows:-
"(B) Further prayed that the Respondents be directed to maintain status-quo and be restrained from taking any action in pursuance of impugned order dated 30.12.2023 up till the disposal of the present petition;"
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner assures this Court that within two days from today necessary steps will be taken 1 (2021) 9 SCC 657 2 Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 2024 decided on 21 April 2025 Page 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:21:20 ::: 30-WP-5931-2025.DOCX to effect service upon the Respondents. This will include payment of process fees etc.
7. Stand over to 30 September 2025.
(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:21:20 :::