M/S Numac, Nagpur Through Its Authorized Signatory, Maroti S/O K. Karwatkar v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mumbai And 2 Others

41-WP-1322-15 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.1322 OF 2015 M/s Numac, a Partnership firm, Nagpur Thr. its authorised signatory. -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. its Principal Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai and ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1323 OF 2015 M/s Noth India Construction, Thr. its authorised signatory Kishanlal S. Sharma -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. its Principal Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai and ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1324 OF 2015 M/s Kataline Infra Products Pvt. Ltd. Thr. its Director Amit s/o Arvind Thatte -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. its Principal Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai and ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1329 OF 2015 M/s Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd. Thr. its authorised signatory Shailendra S. Jain -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. its Principal Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai and ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1331 OF 2015 M/s Vishal Construction, Thr.

its authorised signatory Sanjeev B. Sharma -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. its Principal Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai and ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1333 OF 2015 M/s Abrar Ahmed, Nagpur, Thr. its proprietor Abrar Ahmed -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. its Principal Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri Kunal Nalamwar, counsel for the petitioners. Smt B. Dangre, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

41-WP-1322-15 2/2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 08.02.2016 Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and since similar prayers are made by the petitioners herein, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to carry out the assessment as per the returns filed by the petitioners, for the period from 2010-11 and 2011-12. Mrs Dangre, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 states on instructions that the assessment for the concerned period has been made and the assessment orders are passed. It is stated that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners are free to take up appropriate proceedings.

In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents by the learned Government Pleader, we find that the purpose of filing the writ petitions stands served. Since the respondents have completed the assessment in terms of the returns filed by the petitioners for the relevant period, the cause for filing the petitions would not survive. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the assessment orders, the petitioners are free to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Asmita