Sunil Mukund Thatte v. The State Of Maharashtra And Anothers

{1} 16 sr. no..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9558 OF 2015 SUNIL MUKUND THATTE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Prakash Patil. AGP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.N. Morampalle. Advocate for Respondent No2. : Mr. V.D. Gunale. . . .

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2016.

PER COURT:

1] Mr. Gunale, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was only issued notice and asked to submit return as per the rules then prevailing. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submits that turn over of the petitioner is below Rs. 50 Crores. Petitioner is a medical practitioner and he is not a businessman. On this count also, petitioner is not required to submit return.

2] Mr. Gunale, learned counsel submits that, now, those having turn over below Rs. 50 Crores are not required to submit returns. 3] In the light of that, as now, the rules do not require the persons whose turn over is less than Rs. 50 Crores to submit returns, impugned notice is set aside. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [A.M. BADAR] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE JUDGE grt/-