M/S Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt Ltd vs State Of Mah & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 122 Bom

                                              (1)                           W. P. No. 3487 of 2005



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
              AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.




                                                                                            
                                 Writ Petition No. 3487 of 2005




                                                                    
                                                                    District : Latur

    M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.,




                                                                   
    A private limited company incorporated
    under the provisions of the Companies
    Act 1956, having their distillery cum
    Ethanol manufacturing unit at Plot
    No. A-105 to 107, Addl. Latur Industrial




                                                
    Area, Taluka : Latur, District : Latur,

    Through J.S. Chitkotte,
    GPA holder.
                                 ig                           .. Petitioner.
                               
                    versus

    1. The State of Maharashtra,
       through Secretary,
       Government of Maharashtra,
      


       Home (Transport) Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 020.
   



    2. Commissioner of State Excise,
       Old Custom House,
       Mumbai - 400 032.





    3. The Collector of Latur
       (State Excise Department),
       Latur, District : Latur.                               .. Respondents.





                                        .........................

                    Mr. N.S. Shah, Advocate, holding for
                    Mr. D.B. Sawant, Advocate, for the petitioner.

                    Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Asst. Government Pleader,
                    for respondent nos.1 to 3.




       ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2016                                 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:47:31 :::
                                               (2)                            W. P. No. 3487 of 2005



                                        ..........................




                                                                                             
                                          CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                                  A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :

1. Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, had earlier made a request to delete prayer clauses 'a', 'b', 'c' and 'd'. The same were

allowed to be deleted vide order dated 17th February 2016. So also, the

words 'Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition' were allowed to be deleted from prayer clause 'e'.

2. The Writ Petition, as such, was prosecuted only with regard to prayer clause 'e'. Thereafter on 24th February 2016, the learned Counsel

for the petitioner further stated that he would restrict the present Writ

Petition only to the extent of Transportation Fees / Administrative Fees and would not press the present petition with regard to the Export and Import Fees. The same was recorded vide order dated 24th February

2016.

3. As such, the present petition is being considered only to the

extent of Administrative Fees / Administrative Fees.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst. Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3) W. P. No. 3487 of 2005

5. Upon instructions, Mrs. Deshpande, the learned Asst. Government Pleader, states that the Administrative Fees, as is detailed in

Rule 50 of the Bombay Denatured Spirit Rules 1957, is synonymous to Transport Fees.

6. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

on the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., District Solapur Vs. State of Maharashtra & others , reported in 2011(3) ALL MR 852,

wherein this Court, even in case of non-captive users, has restrained the respondents from recovering Transport Fees on the ground that the

respondent - State is already charging supervision charges and no further

and / or additional service is being rendered by the State Government in connection with the transport of the said products, so as to justify the levy of transport fee on non-captive users which would meet the requirement of

quid pro quo. It is submitted by the learned Counsel, that the judgment in the case of Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar

Karkhana Ltd., referred supra, has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. If the said judgment is assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court,

naturally parties would be governed by the judgment that would be delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., referred supra, we allow the present petition to the extent of restraining the respondents from charging Transport Fees on the Denatured Spirit or Ethenol, as prayed.

(4) W. P. No. 3487 of 2005

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                     ( A.M. BADAR )                         ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
                         JUDGE                                       JUDGE




                                                                      
                                        ................................

     puranik / WP3487.05