Zoomcar India Private Limited v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS
2024:BHC-AS:47854-DB Sayyed 415-WP.17937.2024.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.17937 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO.17937 OF 2024 Zoomcar India Private Limited Zoomcar India Private Limited
...Petitioner
...Petitioner
Versus
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
...Respondents
_____________________________________________________ Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Mihir Mehta a/w Mr. Suyog Bhave and Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Mihir Mehta a/w Mr. Suyog Bhave and Mr. Yash Prakash i/b. PDS Legal for Petitioner. Mr. Yash Prakash i/b. PDS Legal for Petitioner. Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent-State.
Respondent-State.
_____________________________________________________ CORAM :
M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED:
9 December 2024 PC.:- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
This petition challenges two orders dated 3 July 2024 by the This petition challenges two orders dated 3 July 2024 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax.
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. Against both these orders, the Against both these orders, the Petitioner has the remedy of an appeal.
Petitioner has the remedy of an appeal.
3.
In paragraph 25 of the petition, the Petitioner has admitted In paragraph 25 of the petition, the Petitioner has admitted that they have such an alternate remedy. Still, it is their case that such a that they have such an alternate remedy. Still, it is their case that such a remedy is not efficacious because the orders are passed in violation of remedy is not efficacious because the orders are passed in violation of natural justice and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this natural justice and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
Court.
4.
At the time of the arguments, however, Mr Shah pointed out At the time of the arguments, however, Mr Shah pointed out that tax was demanded on items for which the tax had already been that tax was demanded on items for which the tax had already been paid. He submitted that these details were pointed out to the Assistant paid. He submitted that these details were pointed out to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, but this aspect has not been considered at Commissioner of State Tax, but this aspect has not been considered at all on an incorrect interpretation. Accordingly, Mr. Shah submits that all on an incorrect interpretation. Accordingly, Mr. Shah submits that
Sayyed 415-WP.17937.2024.docx this is not a case where the Petitioner should be relegated to the this is not a case where the Petitioner should be relegated to the alternate remedy.
alternate remedy.
5.
Ms. Vyas defended the impugned orders based on the Ms. Vyas defended the impugned orders based on the reasoning reflected therein. She disputes the contentions raised and reasoning reflected therein. She disputes the contentions raised and submits that there is no reason why the Petitioner should not be submits that there is no reason why the Petitioner should not be relegated to the alternate statutory remedy provided by the law. relegated to the alternate statutory remedy provided by the law. 6.
We have considered the rival contentions after perusing the We have considered the rival contentions after perusing the record.
record.
7.
In the facts of the present case, we see no substantial ground In the facts of the present case, we see no substantial ground to deviate from the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies. Simply to deviate from the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies. Simply alleging a violation of natural justice or claiming that judgments of the alleging a violation of natural justice or claiming that judgments of the Supreme Court or High Courts are not considered is insufficient. These Supreme Court or High Courts are not considered is insufficient. These contentions must be made good. By making such allegations, the parties contentions must be made good. By making such allegations, the parties must not try to argue the matter on merits and take chances. must not try to argue the matter on merits and take chances. 8.
Prima facie Prima facie, we have not found any apparent violations of , we have not found any apparent violations of natural justice or contradictions with clearly decided precedents on the natural justice or contradictions with clearly decided precedents on the subject. The contentions about the Petitioner being required to pay tax subject. The contentions about the Petitioner being required to pay tax over items for which tax was already paid would involve investigating over items for which tax was already paid would involve investigating factual aspects which the Appellate Authority could best undertake. If factual aspects which the Appellate Authority could best undertake. If the point was so plain, at least an application for rectification should the point was so plain, at least an application for rectification should have been filed within the prescribed period. have been filed within the prescribed period. 9.
Recently, in the case of Oberoi Constructions Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (L) No.33260 of 2023, we have surveyed the decisions on the principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies. Following our reasoning in the judgment, we decline to entertain this petition but grant the Petitioner liberty to appeal the impugned orders before the Appellate Authority.
Sayyed 415-WP.17937.2024.docx 10.
For all the above reasons, we decline to entertain this petition For all the above reasons, we decline to entertain this petition but grant the Petitioner liberty to challenge the impugned orders by but grant the Petitioner liberty to challenge the impugned orders by instituting appeals before the Appellate Authority. If appeals are instituting appeals before the Appellate Authority. If appeals are instituted within four weeks from today, the same should be considered instituted within four weeks from today, the same should be considered and disposed of on merits without adverting to the limitation issue. and disposed of on merits without adverting to the limitation issue. This is because this petition was filed within the limitation period This is because this petition was filed within the limitation period prescribed for instituting appeals, and the Petitioner was bona fide in prescribed for instituting appeals, and the Petitioner was bona fide in pursuing this petition.
pursuing this petition.
11.
Incidentally, in this case, the Petitioner did not apply for any rectification within the prescribed period. This order will still not preclude the Petitioner from filing the rectification application if the same is now maintainable and reasonable grounds exist for filing the same.
12.
Therefore, we dispose of this petition by keeping all parties' Therefore, we dispose of this petition by keeping all parties' contentions open and by relegating the Petitioner to the remedy of contentions open and by relegating the Petitioner to the remedy of appeal.
appeal. There shall be no order for costs.
There shall be no order for costs.
(Jitendra S. Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 10/12/2024 13:45:09