Bombay High Court
Bharat Serums And Vaccines Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 June, 2022
Bench: K.R. Sriram, Milind N. Jadhav
16.os.wp.2763.21.doc
S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2763 OF 2021
Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Rohan P. Shah a/w. Sri Sabari Rajan anda Shubham Morarka
i/by Vashi and Vashi for the Petitioner
Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special Counsel a/w. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for
Respondent - State ...................
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 27, 2022.
P.C.:
1. Petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to
respondents to refund the CST, interest and penal interest of Rs.14.41
crore paid for F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17.
2. This is the second round of litigation and we are constrained to
state that respondents have to strictly comply with the direction given
by the Court in its order dated 14.09.2018 passed in writ petition No.
3203 of 2017.
3. In writ petition No. 3203 of 2017 also, petitioner sought refund of
amount deposited with revenue under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
read with Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ("the Acts" for
short). That petition has been filed on the ground that the deposit
done during the course of the search was not justified as it was
1 of 4
16.os.wp.2763.21.doc
contrary to the provision of the Acts. The order dated 14.09.2018
passed in writ petition No. 3203 of 2017 reads as under :
"1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeks refund of amounts deposited with the Revenue under
Central Sales Tax Act, 1960 read with Maharashtra Value Added
Tax Act, 2002 (Acts). This on the ground that this deposit done
during the course of a search was not justified, as it was
contrary to the provisions of the Acts.
2. Mr. Sonpal, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue
states that the amounts of which refund is being sought were
deposited by the petitioners on filing revised returns and / or
regular return under the Acts. Thus, no interference is
warranted in writ jurisdiction. However, he also very fairly
states that the assessments of the revised / regular returns of
the petitioners for the Financial Years 2010-11 to are in
progress. On instructions, he further states that the assessment
would be done expeditiously and if on assessment the
petitioners are found entitled to refund, the same shall be
granted in accordance with law.
3. We accept the above statement on behalf of the Revenue.
4. In view of the above, Mr. Shah, learned Counsel
appearing in support of the petition, on instructions, seeks to
withdraw this petition. However, he seeks liberty to urge the
contentions raised herein before the Authorities, who are in the
process of assessing the revised returns / regular returns for the
Financial Years 2011-12 to 2016-17.
5. Liberty as sought is granted.
6. In the above view, the petition is disposed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.
7. All the contentions of the parties are left open."
4. Therefore the Adjudicating Authority as could be seen from
paragraph 2 quoted above is under obligation to grant refund where
petitioner was entitled to any refund. The orders of the Adjudicating
Authority passed on 31.01.2019 and 18.03.2020 are totally silent on
the issue of refund to petitioner. Petitioner therefore has approached
this court on the issue of refund as also other points raised in the two
orders.
2 of 4
16.os.wp.2763.21.doc
5. Mr. Sonpal states the orders are reasoned, but in fairness agrees
with the court that the orders should have dealt with the issue of
refund as directed by this Court in the order dated 14.09.2018.
6. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside two orders
dated 31.01.2019 and 18.03.2020 passed by Deputy Commissioner of
State Tax and remand the matter for de novo consideration. The
concerned Adjudicating Authority shall consider all submissions of
petitioner and pass a reasoned order dealing with every submission
raised by petitioner within 8 weeks from today.
7. Before passing any order, petitioner shall be given a personal
hearing and notice of personal hearing shall be given at least seven
days in advance.
8. If the Adjudicating Authority is going to rely on any judgment or
authority or judicial pronouncement of any forum, a list thereof shall
be provided to petitioner along with notice of personal hearing so that
petitioner can deal with or distinguish the same. If after the personal
hearing, petitioner wishes to file written submissions, the same shall
be filed within three working days thereafter.
3 of 4
16.os.wp.2763.21.doc
9. Mr. Shah states that petitioner will co-operate with respondents
and attend the hearing and will not seek any adjournment.
10. In view of the above, Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner
undertakes to withdraw the petition. Petition stands disposed as
withdrawn. We make it clear that we have not made any comments
on the merits of the matter.
11. At this stage, Mr. Shah states that there is a separate order dated
12.05.2021 passed in respect of F.Y. 2016-17 where the facts are
identical, in which also refund issue has not been considered. Mr.
Shah states that if the court can quash that order also and remand for
de novo consideration to the Adjudicating Authority, petitioner will be
saved from filing another writ petition and this court also not
burdened with another Petition. Mr. Sonpal, in fairness as an officer
of the Court, has no objection. We appreciate the stand of Mr. Sonpal.
12. In the circumstances, the order dated 12.05.2021 for F.Y. 2016-
17 is also quashed and set aside. The directions as above given for the
years mentioned in the petition will be followed also for F.Y. 2016-
2017.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [K. R. SHRIRAM, J.]
Digitally signed
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH
4 of 4
SATISH KILAJE
Date: 2022.06.29
KILAJE 18:26:26 +0530
