https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90738 The HC held that the impugned order by the respondent Collector did not fall within the scope of section 4B of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, rendering an appeal under section 10A inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petition was entertained. The petitioner, operating a water park, was found prima facie eligible for exemption from entertainment tax under the 2006 policy and the Act's definition of tourism projects. The Collector's order, influenced by the Accountant General, was deemed summary and lacked a thorough examination of the petitioner's tax liability. The court recognized a prima facie case favoring the petitioner but emphasized that any interim relief must not be unconditional given the tax nature of the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, with a returnable date set for 26.08.2025. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:30 +0530 Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90738 The HC held that the impugned order by the respondent Collector did not fall within the scope of section 4B of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, rendering an appeal under section 10A inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petition was entertained. The petitioner, operating a water park, was found prima facie eligible for exemption from entertainment tax under the 2006 policy and the Act's definition of tourism projects. The Collector's order, influenced by the Accountant General, was deemed summary and lacked a thorough examination of the petitioner's tax liability. The court recognized a prima facie case favoring the petitioner but emphasized that any interim relief must not be unconditional given the tax nature of the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, with a returnable date set for 26.08.2025. Highlights Indian Laws Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:30 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90738