Bombay High Court
Associates Wines Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Maharshtra Thr Principal ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA
SNEHA ABHAY
2024:BHC-AS:21330-DB
ABHAY DIXIT
DIXIT Date:
2024.05.08
14:02:18
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6525 OF 2024
Associates 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.
11-WP-6525-2024.doc
Dixit
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 16 th April
2024 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 11th September 2023 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 9 th December 2008 and the
order dated 23rd February 2018, a Revision Application has been preferred
before the State Government. An application for stay has also been filed
on 10th November 2023. 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 on 10 th
November 2023 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.
11-WP-6525-2024.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 16th April 2024.
(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. ]
11-WP-6525-2024.doc
Dixit
