M/S. SIEMENS LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 01-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. SIEMENS LTD. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 1, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Discretionary jurisdiction 
under-To interfere with show cause notice directing payment of cess-
Permissibility-Writ Petition challenging jurisdiction of the Authority levying C 
cess-Authorities already determined the liability-Held: Ordinarily a Writ 
Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ 
petition questioning show cause notice-But when notice is issued with 
premeditation, writ petition is mainrainable-As the Authority had 
predetermined the liability, the writ petition is maintainable. 
Appellant, a multi location company was owing two factories one falling 
within the local limits of Bombay Municipal Corporation and the other factory 
fell outside the jurisdiction of the Corporation. Respondent-Corporation 
directed the establishment of appellant which fell outside the jurisdiction of 
D 
the Corporation, to pay the cess. Show cause notice making the demand was 
issued. Appellant's stand was that they were not liable to pay cess for goods E 
supplied from that factory as it did not fall within local jurisdiction of the 
Corporation. 
Appellant filed Writ Petition questioning the jurisdiction of issuance 
of the notice by the Corporation. High Court refused to exercise 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution interfering with demand F 
directing payment of cess. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its 
discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a G 
notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been 
without jurisdiction. (929-B-CJ 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR (1987) SC 
925 
H 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 s.c:R. 
_, 
.... 
A 943; Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. (2004] 3 
SCC 440; Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006] 12 
SCALE 262 - referred to. 
2. But when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition 
B 
would be maintainable. In such ·an event, even if the court directs the 
statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing 
would not yield any fruitful purpose. It is evident in the instant case that 
the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in 
the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause. [929-C-E) 
c 
K.I. Shephard and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1987) 4 SCC 431; 
V.C. Banaras Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant (2006] 6 SCALE 66; 
Shri Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India and Anr. (2006) 1 l SCALE 363; Rajesh 
Kumar and Ors. v. D.C.l.T. and Ors. (2006) 11 SCALE 409 - relied on. 
3. A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as 
D also the statements made before this Court in the counter affidavit filed 
by the respondents, the Court is satisfied that the statutory authority has 
already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability 
or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has 
already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question 
E which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does 
not remain in the realm of a show cause notice. ,The writ petition was 
maintainable. [930-A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5295 of2006. 
F 
From the final Order dated 8-7-2005 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4338 of 2005. 
Harish N. Salve, Prakash Shah, Jay Savla and Ms. Reena Bagga for the 
~
Appellant. 
G 
Vinay Navare, Naresh Kumar, A.P. Mayee and V.N. Raghupathy for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
H 
Whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 
'f 
SIEMENS LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.) 927 
of the Constitution of India would interfere with a demand directing payment A 
of cess is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order 
dated 8.07.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature 
at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4338 of 2005. 
The appellant is a multi location company. It has a factory and godown 
at Kalwe. It pays cess for the goods supplied from the said factory in terms B 
of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.