Rvs Global Solutions PVT. LTD vs. State Of Maharashtra Thr The Ministry Of Industries And Ors

Held

The Court acknowledged the need to balance equities while the writ petition was pending final adjudication. It directed the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (MIDC) to transfer the plot in question in favour of the Petitioner within one month. Concurrently, the Petitioner was restrained from transferring the plot or creating any third-party interest until the disposal of the writ petition. Furthermore, the Petitioner was directed to execute an undertaking to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 31,37,113/- towards differential premium and Rs. 2,630/- towards process fees and GST with MIDC, in the event the writ petition is dismissed. The Court also clarified that these amounts would constitute a charge on the plot until the final decision. The Court did not decide the substantive issues regarding the validity of the circulars or the nature of the transfer at this stage, focusing on interim relief and security for the disputed amount.

Facts

The Petitioner, RVS Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was the successful bidder in a public auction for a plot of land, purchased for Rs. 3,80,68,875/-. The auction was conducted by the Official Liquidator for a company that had gone into liquidation. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), one of the respondents, sought to charge the Petitioner a differential premium of Rs. 31,37,130/- and Rs. 2,630/- towards process fees and GST. MIDC contended that the transfer of leasehold rights was a non-formal/voluntary transfer, attracting this premium as per their circulars dated 12/05/1998 and 12/12/2011. The Petitioner argued that the transfer was informal/involuntary and therefore not subject to the differential premium. The dispute pertains to the conditions imposed by MIDC for transferring the plot, not the sale consideration itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer of leasehold rights of the plot in question, acquired by the Petitioner through a public auction conducted by the Official Liquidator following the liquidation of the original lessee, constitutes a non-formal/voluntary transfer as defined by MIDC's circulars dated 12/05/1998 and 12/12/2011, thereby attracting a differential premium and GST. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the transfer was informal/involuntary and thus did not attract the differential premium. They relied on judgments in M/s. Metal Tubes and Rolling Mills Vs. Transpower Engineering Limited (2018 SCC online Bom 2192) and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Limited Vs. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondent (MIDC) contended that the transfer was non-formal/voluntary and attracted the differential premium and GST, relying on their circulars and the judgment in Aurangabad Carbon Produces Pvt Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No.8499 of 2014) and SI Group – India Private Limited Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others.