Bombay High Court
Dayanand Education Society Thr ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Dige
1
5346.21WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
936 WRIT PETITION NO.5346 OF 2021
DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Smt. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondent No.1
Mr.H.V. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
S.G.DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 31.03.2022
P.C. :
1. We have briefly heard the learned advocates for
the respective sides.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner relies
upon the following judgments :-
(i) Balkrishna Vora Vs. Poona Municipal Corporation
(1963) Mh.L.J. 325)
(ii) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Children Book
Trust, Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(1992 DGLS(SC) 314)
5346.21WP
(iii) Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai Vs.
M. Ambalal & Co.
(2010 DGLS (SC) 1007
(iv) Gorakshan Sanstha Vs. Akola Municipal Corporation,
Akola
(2018 DGLS (Bom.) 1690
(v) The judgment dated 1st March, 2021 delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.202/2012
in the case of Govt. of Kerala & Anr. Vs. Mother
Superior Adoration Convent)
(vi) The judgment dated 30th April, 2021 delivered by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
No.8043/2020 in the case of Abhinav Manav Vikas
Sanstha Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another.
(vii) The order dated 28th October, 2021 delivered by the
Division bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ
Petition No.4383/2021 in the case of Jyoti Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another)
(viii) The order dated 16th August, 2019 delivered by the
Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ
Petition No.927/2018 in the case of Shahbabu
Education Society, Patur, Dist. Akola, Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another.
3. The recovery against the petitioner towards
building tax charged by the Latur Municipal Corporation is
around Rs.75,00,000/- (Rs.Seventy Five Lakhs).
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner had
sought a pass over to take instructions. After the matter was
called out, she submits, on instructions, that the petitioner
5346.21WP
is prepared to deposit 50% of the tax amount and seeks
protection.
5. In Shewalkar Developers Ltd., Vs. Rupee Co-
operative Bank Ltd., Pune reported in 2016(1) Mh. L.J. 382,
this Court has concluded that in recovery matters, there
cannot be a blanket stay.
6. In view of the above, the impugned
communication dated 09.02.2021 and the impugned notices
and bills dated 28.12.2020 shall stand stayed, on the
condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of
Rs.37,50,000/- (Rs. Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand)
with respondent no.2 - Latur Municipal Corporation, on or
before 21st April, 2022. On this condition, further coercive
steps for recovering the tax amount for the financial year
2021-2022, inclusive of the arrears, shall not be initiated by
the Corporation.
7. The Corporation shall enter an affidavit in
reply, on or before 28th April, 2022.
8. List this Petition for hearing on 7th June, 2022.
9. Needless to state, if the amount is not deposited
within the time framed as directed, the protection shall
stand vacated without reference to the Court on 22 nd April,
2022.
5346.21WP
10. The amount deposited with the Corporation
would be subject to the result of this petition.
(S.G.DIGE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
SGA
