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 5, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Diageo India Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Others on 25 November, 2019

Author: Nitin Jamdar

Bench: M.S.Sanklecha, Nitin Jamdar

                                                                 wp-2651-2019


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


                          WRIT PETITION NO.2651 OF 2019

Diageo India Pvt. Ltd.,                              ..       Petitioner.
      v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others                    ..       Respondents.



Mr. Rahul Thakkar i/b. Mr. C. B. Thakkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dushyant Kumar, for the Respondents.

                                        CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA &
                                                NITIN JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE : 25th NOVEMBER, 2019.

P.C:-

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 9th August, 2019 passed by the Respondent No.3 - Dy. Commissioner of State Tax. The impugned order dated 9 th August, 2019 partly rejects the Petitioner's application for rectification of the order dated 31st January, 2019 passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) read with Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act) in respect of Financial Year 2014-15.

2 The impugned order dated 9 th August, 2019 appears to be a non-speaking order. Therefore, we put the above, prima facie view of ours to the Revenue's counsel, who was not able to dispute the same. However, the learned AGP submits that, no observations be made in respect of the merits of the dispute. This as the Assessing Office could S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2019 23:50:55 ::: wp-2651-2019 reconsider the case and apply his mind to the facts and the applicable law, without in any manner being fettered by any observations made by us. We agree.

3 In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 9th August, 2019 and restore the Petitioner's application for rectification dated 11th April, 2019 to the Respondent No.3 for final disposal. Needless to state, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law.

4 Petition disposed of in the above terms.

(NITIN JAMDAR,J.)                                     (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)




S.R.JOSHI                                                                          2 of 2




     ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2019 23:50:55 :::