Bombay High Court
Nira Valley Graps Wines Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Principal ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA
SNEHA ABHAY
2024:BHC-AS:21328-DB
ABHAY DIXIT
DIXIT Date:
2024.05.08
14:02:16
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6620 OF 2024
Nira Valley Grape Wines Pvt. Ltd., ]
MIDC Baramati, Pune ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Home (State Excise) Department. ]
2. The Hon'ble Minister for State Excise, ]
Maharashtra State. ]
3. The Commissioner of State Excise, ]
Maharashtra State. ]
4. The Collector of Pune ]
(State Excise Department), Pune ] .. Respondents
Mr. D.B. Savant with Mr. Vinayak Salokhe, Mr. Ramesh Lad, Ms. Megha
Jani, Mr. Raj S.M. Satam and Mr. Vedastu Rane, Advocates for the
Petitioner in both the Petitions.
Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ
DATE : 7TH MAY, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. }
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondents.
13-WP-6620-2024.doc
Dixit
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 23 rd
February 2018 issued by respondent no.4 and reminder letter dated 28 th
September 2023 that has been issued by the Superintendent, State Excise,
Pune whereby it has been observed that in terms of the order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11 th September 2013 in Special Leave
Petition No.29843-29845/2010 (arising from O.O.C.J. Public Interest
Litigation (Lodging) No.36 of 2018 - Jaiprakash Baviskar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.), it would be necessary for the petitioner to satisfy
the demand as made by the Excise Authorities. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, against the demand notice dated 23 rd February
2018, a Revision Application has been preferred before the State
Government on 9th May 2018. An application for stay has also been filed.
It is therefore submitted that any coercive recovery without the stay
application being considered should not be permitted.
3. In our view, the following directions would meet the ends of
justice :-
(i) The respondent no.2 is directed to consider and decide
the stay application preferred by the petitioner along
with the Revision Application.
(ii) A decision on the stay application be taken after
hearing all parties within a period of eight weeks of
receiving copy of this order.
13-WP-6620-2024.doc
Dixit
(iii) Till the time the stay application is decided, no
coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in terms
of the communication dated 23rd February 2018
issued by respondent no.4 and reminder letter dated
28th September 2023 issued by the Superintendent,
State Excise, Pune
(iv) It is however clarified that the stay application shall be
decided on it's own merit, without being influenced by
these directions.
(v) All points raised on merits are kept open.
4. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No costs.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
13-WP-6620-2024.doc
Dixit
