IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3711 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.3711 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.3711 OF 2009 Builders Association of Navi Mumbai & anr .. Petitioners vs State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents Mr.Shavan Jagtani i.b Mahimtura & Co for Petitioners. Mr.VinaySonpal AGP for Respondents .. CORAM: F.I.Rebello and CORAM: F.I.Rebello and CORAM: F.I.Rebello and J.H.Bhatia, JJ J.H.Bhatia, JJ J.H.Bhatia, JJ DATED: 4th May,2009 DATED: 4th May,2009 DATED: 4th May,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. At the outset, on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the petition suffers from misjoinder from cause of action in as much as Petitioner no.1 could not have been a co-Petitioner in this petition. For orders to be passed, we do not propose to deal with it presently. 3. The major grievance of the petitioner is that an order under section 23 (4) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 dated 13th January, 2009 came to be passed without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing thereby in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 4. Considering the record on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel submits that the petitioner will be given a fresh hearing. 5. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 13th January, 2009 and consequential orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondents no.2 for a decision afresh according to law with following directions : (i) The petitioner to appear before respondent no.2 on 11th May, 2009 at 11 a.m. on which date respondent no.2 to issue fresh directions if need be, after hearing the petitioner. (ii) The Respondent no.2 to complete the hearing and proceed to pass order at any rate not later than 3 months from 11th May, 2009. (iii) All contentions raised by the petitioners are left open to be considered where available by the respondent no.2. (iv) The Petitioner no.2 will not ask for adjournments and will proceed with the matter. Needless to say that the petitioner no.2 will produce the documents in their possession as also books of accounts if demanded by respondent no.2. Rule made absolute accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. { J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J } { J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J } { J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J }