Rajputtana Castle Resorts And Clubs Private Ltd v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Princ. Secr. Ministry Of Revenue And Forest And ORS
TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2023.03.24 11:48:37 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 258 OF 2023 Rajputtana Castle Resorts and Clubs Private Ltd., (formerly known as M/s. Hotel Sai Siddhi Private Ltd.) ...
Petitioner vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...
Respondents ......
Mrs. Jai Kanade i/b Sonal Doshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. S. D. Vyas, 'B' Panel Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4. ......
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 20 MARCH 2023 P.C. :- On 12 January 2023, we had passed the following order : "Having considered the earlier orders passed and that a demand made by the Respondents towards entertainment duty, pertains to the event that has taken place in the year 2011 and no amount is deposited pursuant thereto, unless, the Petitioner deposits atleast 50% of the duty demanded, we would not entertain this Writ Petition further.
2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that four weeks time may be
granted. We decline this request, considering the time span and the fact that no deposit has been made and direct that it should be paid within two weeks.
3 On this condition, ad-interim order is continued till next date i.e. 25 January 2023. If the amount is not paid within two weeks, adinterim order will stand vacated". 2.
Thereafter, on 25 January 2023, when the petition came up on board, it was noted that the amount was not deposited and the ad-interim order stood vacated. Today also the amount is not deposited.
3.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that no instructions have been received in respect of deposit of the amount. 4.
We had placed this condition as we noted that the litigation is pending since the year 2011 and there is a demand of entertainment tax of that year. Throughout the proceedings, the Petitioner has received protection for recovery without any deposit. From the title of the petition, it is to be noted that the Petitioner is running a club and a resort. The demand is to the tune of Rs. 12,48,000/- which was of the year 2011. Still in the year 2023, we had put a condition of deposit of 50% without considering devaluation thereof. That is also not been complied with. In light of that position, we are not inclined to extend our discretionary jurisdiction any further.
5.
The writ petition is accordingly rejected.
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
NITIN JAMDAR, J.