The Bombay High Court has directed the expeditious adjudication of a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) and the release of a seized truck on deposit of Rs.2,74,400/- under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
The petitioners, represented by Vaibhav P. Patankar, challenged the notice dated 10th June 2024. The notice involved the interception of the petitioners’ truck bearing No. MH-04/JU-6554, which was found carrying four Brass Greet Powder.
The petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Despite responding to the Show Cause Notice, no adjudication had taken place, prompting the petitioners to seek the court’s intervention.
The core issue before the court was the lack of adjudication of the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent seizure of the truck owned by petitioner no.1 (M.D. Enterprises), while the notice was issued to petitioner no.2 (Gauransh Traders).
The petitioners, on instructions, submitted that an amount of Rs.2,74,400/-, as indicated in the Show Cause Notice would be deposited without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners before the Tahasildar by 19th July 2024.
The court found merit in the petitioners’ plea for expedited adjudication. The bench noted the submission by the petitioners’ counsel that an amount of Rs.2,74,400/-, as indicated in the Show Cause Notice, would be deposited without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners before the Tahasildar.
The bench of Justices A.S Chandurkar and Rajesh. S. Patil ordered that upon such deposit, the truck No. MH-04/JU-6554 shall be released. Additionally, petitioner no.2 (Gauransh Traders) is required to appear before the Tahasildar on 24th July 2024.
The court directed that the Show Cause Notice dated 10th June 2024 be adjudicated by the Tahasildar within ten days from that date. Should any adverse order be passed, it shall not be implemented for fifteen days from its service on petitioner no.2, allowing the petitioners time to seek further redressal if required. All points raised on merit were kept open by the court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
