Bombay High CourtWP/3842/2019dismissedrule discharged

Siti Networks Limited, Nagpur Through Authorized Representative Rahul S/O Deoram Bhalekar v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department Of Entertainment Tax, Mumbai And Others

2019-06-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp3842.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3842/2019 Siti Networks Limited, Nagpur ..Vs..

The State of Maharashtra and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Shantanu Khedkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 12.6.2019.

Heard.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application filed by the petitioner praying for condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, delay is only of 156 days and it occasioned as petitioner had initially approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and if the said period is excluded, then there is no delay.

Undisputedly, as per the notice issued by the Revenue Officer on 21st January, 2017 for recovery of amount of Rs.84,64,633/- two cheques were given on behalf of the petitioner and one cheque of Rs.40,00,000/- came to be dishonoured. The petitioner had assured the Revenue Officer that balance amount of Rs.44,64,633/- would be paid by 1st March, 2017. The petitioner has not paid this amount also as assured.

2 wp3842.19 Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the fact that dispute is about revenue receivable by the State, the petitioner was asked to show bona fides and deposit the amount when the matter was taken up for hearing on 6th June, 2019. Today, learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to give bank guarantee for Rs.20,00,000/- only.

Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the facts of the case, I am not inclined to show any indulgence in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.