Bombay High Court
Marriott International Licensing ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 April, 2023
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Abhay Ahuja
skn 1 24-WP-5309.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 5309 OF 2022
Marriott International Licensing Co. BV ... Petitioner.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents.
Mr.Harish Bindumadhavan with Mr.Mayur Jain, Mr.Prathamesh
Gargate i/b. UBR Legal Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr.V.A.Sonpal, Special Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Chavan, AGP
for the Respondents.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 25 April 2023. P.C. :
Leave to amend to correct the date of order of assessment in the prayer clauses. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re- verification is dispensed with.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner has sought to challenge the order of assessment dated 31 March 2022 issued by Respondent No.2- ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2023 06:23:05 :::
skn 2 24-WP-5309.2022.doc Deputy Commissioner of State Tax pursuant to show cause notice dated 27 October 2021. The main contention of the Petitioner is that neither the notice dated 27 October 2021 nor the order of assessment was served on the address of the Petitioner which is located in Netherlands. The learned counsel for the Respondents contends that notices addressed to the Petitioner have been received by one Mr.Nikhil Kothari, Chartered Accountant which led the Respondent Authorities to believe that the Petitioner is duly served.
4. There is, however, no dispute before us that the notice as required under Rule 87 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 has not been served on the Petitioner. The notice has not been served on the Petitioner as required as per the statute and the Petitioner has categorically asserted that Mr.Nikhil Kothari was not authorized on behalf of the Petitioner but he was representing another entity with whom the Petitioner had an agreement.
5. In light of this position, the impugned order of assessment will have to be quashed and set aside as it is passed in breach of natural justice and an opportunity needs to be given to the Petitioner to put forth its say.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31 March 2022 is quashed and set aside.
7. Considering the background in which the controversy ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2023 06:23:05 ::: skn 3 24-WP-5309.2022.doc has arisen and the Petitioner being located in Netherlands, to avoid any further complications, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the representative of the Petitioner would attend the office of Respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner of State Tax on 8 May 2023 with due authority. If the representative of the Petitioner appears on 8 May 2023, the Respondent No.2 will proceed as per law. All contentions are kept open.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2023 06:23:05 :::