Bombay High Court

J M EnterprisesversusThe State of Maharashtra

Decided: 21 September 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Tribunal's dismissal of the condonation application was invalid as it was unreasoned and failed to consider the petitioner's substantive explanations.

Summary

The petitioner, Manoj R. Desai of J.M. Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's order dismissing his application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an ex parte assessment order. The Tribunal held that the reasons for delay were unsatisfactory and dismissed the application without a reasoned order. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal had considered the petitioner's explanations, including reliance on prior judgments (Anshul Impex and United Projects) and the fact that the matter was sub‑judice. Finding the Tribunal's order unreasoned and not having given due weight to the explanations, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh consideration of the condonation application. The petition was consequently disposed of, with the petitioner directed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date.

Issues considered

Whether the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay without a reasoned order.
Whether the petitioner's reasons for delay, including reliance on prior case law and the sub‑judice status of related matters, merit condonation.

Subjects

condonation of delay
sales tax tribunal
reasoned order
ex parte assessment
writ petition
appeal

Judgment

                                                          14-WP-4403-2026.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION NO. 4403 OF 2026
Manoj R. Desai, proprietor of J. M. Enterprises .....Petitioner

             Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                      .....Respondents

                              .....
Ms. Nikita Badheka a/w Mr. Parth Badheka and Ms. Lata Nagal, for
the Petitioner.

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, A.G.P., for
the Respondent-State.
                                ..…

                                   CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                           SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                   DATE   : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026


P.C.:-

1.        Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.


2.        Heard learned A.G.P. for the Respondent-State who argued in

support of the impugned Order.


3.        The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has rejected the

Application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner on the

ground that the reasons given by the Applicant for delay of 1009

Manisha                                                                 1/3
             Digitally signed by
MANISHA      MANISHA
             BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA   TALEKAR
TALEKAR      Date: 2026.09.21
             19:37:46 +0530
                                                          14-WP-4403-2026.doc


days for filing the Appeal is not just and proper. The Application is

therefore dismissed for absence of statutory reasons.


4.        We find that in the Application for condonation of delay which

is at page no.111 of the paper book, there are several reasons which

the Petitioner has set out for the delay in filing the Application. None

of the reasons are discussed by the Tribunal except for saying that

the reasons are not satisfactory. Further one more important aspect is

the reason in paragraph no.6 of the said Application which reads

thus:


          “In any case, the assessment order was passed exparte
          creating huge demand comprising out tax, interest and
          penalty. The applicant through the representative filed
          the appeal challenging the AO relying on the judgment of
          Anshul Impex. The learned appellate authority rejected
          the appeal as “NOT ADMITTED”. The learned appellate
          authority did not consider that the WRIT PETITION NO.
          2883 of 2018 in case of United Projects was pending and
          the matter was subjudice and rejected the appeal as NOT
          ADMITTED.”


5.        We find that the impugned Order is not a reasoned Order and

has been passed without giving due consideration to the reasons

furnished by the Petitioner in the Application for condonation of

delay. Hence, the following Order:

Manisha                                                                 2/3
                                                             14-WP-4403-2026.doc


                                      ORDER

          (i)    The impugned Order dated 15th April, 2024 passed by the

          Maharashtra Sales Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.48

          of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.


          (ii)   The said Application for condonation of delay be

          considered afresh on its own merits and in accordance with

          law. After hearing the Petitioner as well as the Respondents, a

          fresh Order be passed in the Application for condonation of

          delay. The Application be decided expeditiously.


          (iii) The Petitioner to appear before the Tribunal on 1 st

          October, 2026 along with the copy of this Order.


          (iv) Accordingly, Writ Petition No.4403 of 2026 stands

          disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                               (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Manisha                                                                    3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.