Motowala Infrastructure PVT. LTD. Through Its Director Zubair A Motiwala vs. State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of for the same reasons as given in Writ Petition No. 2512/2021. The impugned assessment orders in each petition were quashed and set aside. The assessment proceedings were restored to the file before the concerned Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Commissioner is directed to examine the pending issues in light of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. B.U.Bhandari Auto and in the context of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, and then take decisions as per law. The Court clarified that it has not concluded on other aspects that may arise during the assessment proceedings, other than the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. B.U.Bhandari Auto. The Commissioner is to examine the facts of each case and pass orders accordingly. The contentions of both the Petitioners and the department are expressly kept open. The consequential effects of setting aside the impugned orders are to be given effect to by the concerned authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, Motowala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petition challenges an unspecified order or action by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Aurangabad. The petitioner and the State's counsel agreed that the issues in this petition are identical to those in a batch of matters consolidated and disposed of by the principal seat of the High Court on April 12, 2023, in Writ Petition No. 2512/2021 (Modi Car Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others). Consequently, both parties agreed that the present writ petition could be disposed of with similar directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed and set aside in light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. B.U.Bhandari Auto and in the context of Section 55 of the Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issues in the present writ petition are identical to those in a previously decided batch of matters (WP No. 2512/2021) and therefore, the petition should be disposed of with similar directions. Revenue's Contention: The State's counsel (AGP) concurred with the petitioner's submission that the issues are identical and the matter can be disposed of with similar directions as in the aforementioned writ petition.