Bombay High Court
Dr Anupama V vs State Of Maharashtra-Through Govt ... on 5 February, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2024:BHC-OS:1958-DB 9 WPL2708-24.DOC
Mohite
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
TUSHAR
MOHITE
Digitally signed by
TRUSHA TUSHAR
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2708 OF 2024
MOHITE
Date: 2024.02.05
20:17:19 +0530
Dr.Anupama V. ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader, ...Respondents
Bombay High Court
Mr.Prithviraj Chaudhary a/w Mr.Prabhakar Shetty for the Petitioner
Mrs.Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr.Himanshu Takke, A.G.P. for the
State
_______________________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATED: 05 February, 2024
_______________________
P.C.
1. This Petition is filed praying for the following reliefs:
"a) That this court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to quash the impugned recovery notice in Form 318 bearing No. ST0/C-203, TIN 27500953571V/C/F-318/23-24/B-109 dated issued by the 3rd Respondent, enclosed as Exhibit A.
b) That this court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions to the 4 & Respondent to allow the operation of bank account maintained by the Petitioner for the reasons stated in the grounds.
c) That this court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions to grand refund of the amounts already recovered along with interest.
d) That, pending decision on this petition, such ad-interim and/or interim order may be this Court deems fit.
And
e) For such further and other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The case of the Petitioner is that she got married to Rakesh Shukla in October 2006. She was made a Director in some of the companies floated by Page 1 of 2 05 February, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2024 09:46:58 ::: 9 WPL2708-24.DOC her husband Rakesh Shukla, including M/s.MAD-CROC ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED. She is a Dentist by Profession. She is running a Dental Clinic named 'Ayush Dental Care'. Her grievance is that her bank account has been attached under section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ("MVAT Act"). Her contention is that her personal account could not be attached. The Respondents ought to have proceeded against the Company. It is on such premise that the present Petition has been filed.
3. The Petitioner has raised several grounds challenging the impugned action on the part of the Respondents, including lack of opportunity being given to the petitioner under the provisions of section 44(6) of the MVAT Act, 2002.
4. Ms.Chavan, the learned Additional G.P., on instructions, would submit that the Respondents now intend to adjudicate under section 44(6) of the MVAT Act. However, insofar as the attachment of the Petitioner's personal account is concerned, Ms.Chavan states that, within a period of two days from today, the same shall be de-freezed and the concerned bank would be informed of the attachment being revoked.
5. In view of the fair stand as taken on behalf of the Respondents, further adjudication is not called for.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of, accepting such statement made on behalf of the Respondents, however, with a condition that, in the event, any further action is intended to be taken, same be undertaken in accordance with law, namely, the further procedure to be followed under section 44(6) of the MVAT Act.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) Page 2 of 2 05 February, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2024 09:46:58 :::