ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent of parties, heard forthwith.

(2.) The first grievance as raised by the petitioner herein is that they have made an application for stay and had given various reasons as to why stay should be granted. Their application has been rejected. There is no reasoned order and the order communicated to them is in terms as set out in Exhibit K to the petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to Form No. 311 under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (VAT Act) which is an application for grant of stay and Form No. 312 under Rule 33 which is described asAdmission memo-cum-stay order under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax act, 2002. It is pointed ot that the stay is invariably in terms of Form No. 312 and no reasons are given for granting stay or rejecting application for stay.