Sahara Hospitality Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 551 Bom

        Digitally
Minal   signed by
        Minal V. Parab
V.      Date:
        2021.01.12
Parab   12:40:48
        +0530




                                                                                10_WPL9612_20.doc

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                          WRIT PETITION (L) NO.9612 OF 2020

                         Sahara Hospitality Limited                           ...      Petitioner
                         Vs.
                         State of Maharashtra and others                      ...      Respondents

                         Mr. Gautam Ankhad a/w. Mr. Ishan Patkar and Mr. Ashish Agarkar for
                         Petitioner.
                         Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for Respondents-State.

                                                           CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
                                                                   MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

                                                           DATE     : JANUARY 11, 2021

                         P.C. :

Heard Mr. Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel along with Mr. Patkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. Chavan, learned AGP for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the best judgment assessment orders dated 25.11.2020 and 11.12.2020 passed under section 62(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 covering the period from March, 2020 upto October, 2020 as well as cancellation of its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration dated 24.12.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have made assessment for a period during which the lock-down was in force and there was hardly any business activity of the petitioner. Despite this, petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.10,25,800.00 on 14.12.2020 which aspect has not at all been considered by the respondents.

3.1. Cancellation of registration has been challenged on the ground that it does not indicate or acknowledge payment of GST to the tune of

10_WPL9612_20.doc

Rs.10,25,800.00 by the petitioner. That apart, the impugned order is devoid of any rational basis for taking such a drastic action.

4. Issue notice.

5. Ms. Chavan, learned counsel waives notice for all the respondents.

6. Respondents to file reply affidavit before the returnable date.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, impugned cancellation of registration dated 24.12.2020 is hereby stayed. Further, no coercive steps further to the best judgment assessments shall be taken against the petitioner in the meanwhile.

8. Stand over to 16.03.2021.

9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)                              (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)



Minal Parab