MANTRI METALLICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/11469/2025HC BombayHCBM07044841202530 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK,HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the praecipe filed by the Petitioner's counsel. It found merit in the request to correct the appearance memo of the order dated 30th September 2025. The Court directed that the name of Mr. Dharan Gandhi (Through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Kuldeep Kulkarni for the Petitioner be added to the appearance memo. Concurrently, the name of Mr. S.B. Kalel, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State was to be deleted, as the State was not a party to the writ petition. The Court ordered that the order dated 30th September 2025 be corrected accordingly and the corrected order uploaded on the official website of the High Court of Bombay. The praecipe was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Mantri Metallics Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur. The Petitioner's counsel filed a praecipe dated 3rd October 2025 for 'Speaking to the Minutes' of an order dated 30th September 2025. The praecipe sought to correct the appearance memo in the order. Specifically, it requested the addition of Mr. Dharan Gandhi (Through V.C.) along with Mr. Kuldeep Kulkarni for the Petitioner and the deletion of Mr. S.B. Kalel, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State, as the State was not a party to the petition. The High Court was asked to upload the corrected order on its official website.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appearance memo in its order dated 30th September 2025 contained errors that needed correction. The Petitioner argued that the appearance memo incorrectly listed the State as a respondent and failed to include the correct counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner sought to have the appearance memo amended to accurately reflect the parties and their representation. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

504-WP-11469-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11469 OF 2025 Mantri Metallics Private Limited … Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I, Kolhapur & Ors. … Respondents —————— Mr. Dharan Gandhi (Through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Kuldeep Kulkarni for the Petitioner. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Date : 3rd October 2025. P. C. : 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2. Praecipe dated 3rd October 2025 is filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for ‘Speaking to the Minutes’ of order dated 30th September 2025. 3. In the said Order, in the appearance memo, the name of Mr. Dharan Gandhi (Through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Kuldeep Kulkarni for the Petitioner be added and the name of Mr. S.B. Kalel, A.G.P. for the osk 1 of

504-WP-11469-2025.doc Respondent-State be deleted, as the State is not party to the Petition. 4. The order dated 30th September 2025 be corrected accordingly and corrected order be uploaded on the official website of the High Court of Bombay. 5. Praecipe is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. [ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] osk 2 of

2 OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.10.03 19:30:48 +0530

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →