Mahyco Monsato Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 13161 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mahyco Monsato Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 December, 2023

Author: G. S. Kulkarni

Bench: G. S. Kulkarni

2023:BHC-AS:38897-DB
                 Tauseef                                                       906.3- 15709.2023.doc


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.15709 OF 2023

                 Mohyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.             ...Petitioner
                             Versus
                 The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                       ...Respondents

_________ Mr. Mihir Mehta a/w. Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr. Yash Prakash i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the Petitioner.

Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent (State).

__________ CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.

DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2023.

P.C. :-

1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

had filed an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Appellate

Authority on the ground that the Petitioner had not made pre-deposit. It

is submitted that such order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in

view of pronouncement of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the

The State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Constructions1, which has

held that the amendment as brought about to the Maharashtra Value

Added Tax Act, 2002 by incorporating the explanation below Sub-section

1 2023 (10) TMI 1208 SC

1 of 2

Tauseef 906.3- 15709.2023.doc

(6C) of Section 26 was illegal and unconstitutional, such a pre-deposit

cannot now be insisted. We find substance in the contention as urged on

behalf of the Petitioner.

2. In this view of the matter, we quash and set aside the orders

passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Petitioner's appeal for want of pre-

deposit and restore the appeal of the Petitioner to the file of the Tribunal

to be decided on its own merits. Ordered accordingly.

3. Needless to observe that the Petitioner would be entitled to

move an application for interim relief in such appeal.

4. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept

open.

5. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

2 of 2