– (PER : AARTI SATHE, J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up
for final hearing at the stage of admission.
Mane
914- WP–5048-25.DOC
2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner seeks to challenge the settlement order dated 18 th April 2024 passed by
Respondent No. 2 whereby the refund for the tax period 2007-08 has been
adjusted against the tax demand for the tax period 2008-09. According to the
Petitioner, such adjustment has been made despite there being no pending dues
for recovery, by invocation of the proviso to Section 50(1) of the Maharashtra
Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MVAT Act”) which is wholly unjustified.