Emerald Jewel Industry India Ltd. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7934 Bom

          Digitally signed
GAURI     by GAURI AMIT
          GAEKWAD
                                                    1/2                          19.WP-910-2022.doc
AMIT      Date:
GAEKWAD   2022.08.19
          10:45:19 +0530
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO.910 OF 2022

             Emerald Jewel Industry India Ltd. & Anr.       ....Petitioners
                       V/s.
             The State of Maharashtra and Ors.             ....Respondents
                                                  ----
             Mr. Rahul C. Thakar i/b. Mr. C.B. Thakar for petitioners.
             Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State.
                                                  ----
                                                   CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
                                                             A.S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATED : 17th AUGUST 2022

P.C. :

1 Petitioner is impugning an order dated 1st December 2021

passed by respondent no.3 on various grounds. According to petitioner

(a) respondent has, in the garb of rectification, reviewed his own

assessment order, which is not permissible in law and (b) respondent has,

notwithstanding a judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Ambica Steels Ltd.

V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.1 and a communication from the

authorities in Coimbatore that 'F' form will not be issued by Coimbatore

authorities, insisted on submission of 'F' forms. It is petitioners' case that the

Apex Court has in very clear terms expressed that when a certain State,

within whose jurisdiction the transferee is located, is not issuing form F,

then in such an eventuality it would be open to the Assessing Officer to

complete reassessment proceedings on its own merits after examining the

transaction between the parties, keeping in mind the circumstance that the

1. 2009 (14) SCC 309 Gauri Gaekwad 2/2 19.WP-910-2022.doc

assessee is not in a position to obtain form F for no fault of his.

Notwithstanding this settled position, in our view, respondent no.3 insisting

on form F is, prima facie, not tenable.

2 Therefore, Rule. Mr. Takke waives service.

3 Ad-interim in terms of prayer clause - (k) is granted.

4 Affidavit in reply to be filed and copy served within two weeks

from today. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and copy served within two weeks

thereafter.

5 Petition be listed for final hearing on 29th September 2022.

(A.S. DOCTOR, J.)                                            (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Gauri Gaekwad