Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
EON Kharadi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.5275 of 2013
Decided On : 07-04-2026
| 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 Bharucha, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The Petitioner Company was granted approval by the Central Government for setting up of an IT & ITES Sector Specific Special Economic Zone [SEZ] at Kharadi, Pune. The Government of Maharashtra had also recommended that such approval be granted to the Petitioner Company. The State Government’s policy regarding setting up of Special Economic Zones in Maharashtra issued on 12.10.2001 specifically provided that the developers of the SEZs and Industrial Units and other establishments within the SEZ would be exempted from all States and local taxes and levies including Octroi. The Petitioner Company had paid octroi between 2005-2011 to the Pune Municipal Corporation [hereinafter referred to ‘PMC’] under protest. They demanded refund of the octroi as per the policy of the State Government. The Petitioner pursued the issue of exemption of octroi with the PMC, but, vide letter dated 21.7.2012, the Petitioner Company was informed that the PMC was not giving any exemption from paying octroi. The Petitioner company was directed to import the goods only after paying the octroi.
4. The Petitioner has challenged this communication. There are other prayers in the Petition for directions to frame appropriate rules and for granting exemption from payment of octroi. One of the prayers is for directions to grant refund of octroi duty amounting to Rs.6,69,91,584/- along with interest @ 18% per annum in view of the State SEZ Policy dated 12.10.2001 for the period from 2005 to 2011.
5. The brief facts leading to filing of the Petition are as follows :
6. The Petitioner was a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Earlier the company was registered in the name of Panchshil Premises Private Limited. The Registrar of Companies issued a fresh incorporation certificate to the Petitioner vide certificate dated 15.9.2005 sanctioning the change in the name of the Petitioner from Panchshil Premises Private Limited to the present name i.e. EON Kharadi Infrastructure Private Limited. The Petitioner Company has its registered address at Dr. Gopal Rao Deshmukh Marg and has its administrative office at Bund Garden Road, Pune.
7. The Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra, the Respondent No.2 is the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra, the Respondent No.3 is the Pune Municipal Corporation, the Respondent No.4 is the Municipal Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation, the Respondent No.5 is the Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour Department, State of Maharashtra and the Respondent No.6 is the Union of India.
8. In April, 2000, the Government of India announced Special Economic Zones Scheme. On 12.10.2001, the Government of Maharashtra vid
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.
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
