Mahyco Monsato Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Tauseef 906.3- 15709.2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2023.12.21 21:05:56 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.15709 OF Mohyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

_________ Mr. Mihir Mehta a/w. Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr. Yash Prakash i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the Petitioner.

Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent (State).

__________ CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.

DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2023.

P.C. :- 1.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the Petitioner had not made pre-deposit. It is submitted that such order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of pronouncement of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions1, which has held that the amendment as brought about to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 by incorporating the explanation below Sub-section 2023 (10) TMI 1208 SC

Tauseef 906.3- 15709.2023.doc (6C) of Section 26 was illegal and unconstitutional, such a pre-deposit cannot now be insisted. We find substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner.

2.

In this view of the matter, we quash and set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Petitioner's appeal for want of predeposit and restore the appeal of the Petitioner to the file of the Tribunal to be decided on its own merits. Ordered accordingly. 3.

Needless to observe that the Petitioner would be entitled to move an application for interim relief in such appeal. 4.

All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

5.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]