Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V.KOTWAL, SANDESH D.PATIL
EON Kharadi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sez developer petitions against pmc octroi levy refusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. sez approvals granted with promised tax exemptions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. pmc refuses exemption, fails to amend octroi rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. arguments on estoppel, statutory amendment, state vs pmc liability. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. state policy exempts sezs from octroi or reimburses taxes. (Para 29) |
| 6. sez act requires state to ensure local tax exemptions. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. pmc cannot refund without octroi rules amendment. (Para 34) |
| 8. state empowered under mmc act to mandate exemptions. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. state must fulfill sez policy promises. (Para 38) |
| 10. promissory estoppel enforces state tax exemption promise. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 11. petition timely, no alternate remedy required. (Para 41) |
| 12. state to refund octroi with 6% interest. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Sriram Sridharan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Smt.Neha Bhide, learned Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5, Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and Ms. Shenaz
State bound by SEZ policy promising octroi exemption to developers; must reimburse payments despite no municipal rule amendment, applying promissory estoppel as promise induced investment without pre....
A claim for tax refund requires proof that the burden was not passed on to consumers, and failure to protest payments undermines the claim.
SEZ Act Section 26 exemption for services to SEZ units overrides service tax levy under Finance Act; procedural non-compliance in notifications does not defeat substantive statutory exemption due to ....
The specific conditions of a contract cannot be overridden by the law of equity.
The amendment to Section 8(5) of the CST Act does not retrospectively affect previously granted tax exemptions, which remain valid unless revoked with notice.
An existing letter of approval cannot be retroactively deemed invalid by changing guidelines, and operation benefits under the SEZ Act must adhere to the granted authorisations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
