Bombay High Court
Reliance Infrastructure Limited vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:7207-DB 1 of 3 904.WP(L).10306.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.10306 OF 2026
Reliance Infrastructure Limited Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Prakash D.Shah, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal for
Petitioner.
Mr.Himanshu Takke, AGP, for Respondent
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 25th March 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr.Prakash Shah, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.Himanshu Takke, learned AGP for the Respondents-Revenue.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs :
"a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents, by themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith refrain from taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of and/or in furtherance of and/or in implementation of the said assessment dated 12.1.2026 (Exhibit-E) passed by the Respondent no.3 pending the hearing and final disposal of appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) against the said assessment order dated 12.1.2026;
b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents, by themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith return Rs.4,98,77,591.00 MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.03.25 illegally recovered by way of adjustment against the refund sanctioned and granted THATTE 15:09:11 +0530 to the Petitioner with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum;
M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 22:16:14 ::: 2 of 3 904.WP(L).10306.2026.DOC
c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the refund adjustment order dated 13.1.2026 (Exhibit-G) issued by the Respondent no.3, to the extent in purports to recover amounts in excess of 10%."
3. Admittedly, against the assessment order dated 12th January 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, the Petitioner has already approached the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) by filing an appeal as also a stay application. The case of the Petitioner is that there were certain refund adjustments and in this context on 9th January 2026, an order was passed by Respondent no.3 granting sanction refund of Rs.5,79,08,490/- along with interest of Rs.27,51,050/- which is being relied upon. An issue has arisen in regard to the pre-deposit which is required to be made by the Petitioner for adjudication of the appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The case of the Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has orally informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner needs to make a pre-deposit being 10% of the balance amount as per the requirement of Section 26(6A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT Act). The Petitioner contends that the amount already recovered must be accounted for against the pre- deposit requirement under the provisions of Section 26(6A) of MVAT Act, as the provisions of Section 26(6A) of MVAT Act are strictly construed and considered in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of VVF India Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1. The Petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the Petitioner has already filed an appeal and a stay application, and without considering that same for want of pre-deposit, a recovery is sought to be foisted 1(2022)13-SCC-644 M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 22:16:14 ::: 3 of 3 904.WP(L).10306.2026.DOC against the Petitioner under the orders subject matter of the appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals).
4. We find that the Petitioner has already moved an application dated 18 th March 2026 (Exhibit-L) before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) asserting that the appeal filed by the Petitioner is maintainable and admitted by the Appellate Authority as there is already compliance in terms of the pre-deposit, as set out in the said application. The said application has so far not been considered and no order has been passed. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that, that the application dated 18th March 2026 (Exhibit-L) be decided by the Appellate Authority as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two weeks from today in accordance with law.
5. Till said application is decided, no coercive steps of any recovery shall be taken against the Petitioner.
6. Ordered accordingly.
7. In the event an order adverse to the Petitioner is passed, in the event any coercive action is proposed to be taken against the Petitioner, a seven working days notice be issued to the Petitioner.
8. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 22:16:14 :::