Case Law Details
Starlight System Private Limited Vs Union of India and ors. (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner is a developer. It paid VAT on sale of flats. However, there was dispute about the deductions claimed by it. A demand of VAT under the Maharashta Value Added Tax was created. It was contested in appeal. In the mean while, the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears (Amnesty scheme) was introduced. It applied under the scheme and relief was granted. However, it was reviewed, by order, by the Deputy Commissioner stating that the benefit would not be available. Such order was challenged in writ petition.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court set aside the review order and allowed the writ petition. It held: (i) the order was passed during COVID-19 pandemic and hence, passed in violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) the authority to examine the submission that the review by “Deputy Commissioner” is bad in law as it can be done only by the “Commissioner”; (iii) refers to judgment in case of Andreas Sthil Private Limited case; (iv) remands matter to the proper /appropriate officer.
The matter was argued by Ld. Counse;l Bharat Raichandani along with Senior Associate Jasmine Dixit
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. After this matter was heard for some time yesterday, we prima facie felt that the impugned order dated 29th July 2020 was made without due compliance with the principles of natural justice or fair claim. This was more so because the adjudication proceedings were held during the Covid-19 pandemic period. Accordingly, we had adjourned the matter to enable Ms. Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader, to obtain instructions.
3. Ms Chavan, after obtaining instructions, has stated that the impugned order dated 29th July 2020 and rectification order dated 2nd November 2020 could be set aside, and the Petitioner could be granted the opportunity of hearing in the proposed review proceedings.
4. Raichandani, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that review is not maintainable. He seeks to rely upon our judgment dated 23 October 2024 in the case of Andreas Stihl Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax and Ors. in Writ Petition No.15511 of 2023.
5. According to us, now that we are setting aside the impugned order dated 29 July 2020 and the rectification order dated 2 November 2020 and directing the Respondents to grant the Petitioner an opportunity to hear, the Petitioner can press this point and rely upon the above judgment. However, we clarify that all contentions of all parties, including Ms. Chavan’s contentions based on section 17 of the Settlement Act and the maintainability are kept open.
6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 29 July 2020 and the rectification order dated 2 November 2020 and restored the proposed review proceedings before the appropriate Officer. The appropriate Officer should grant the petitioner an opportunity of a hearing, consider rival submissions on the merits of maintainability, and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible.
7. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any costs order.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of the order.
Author Bio
