Judgment
33-WP-1943-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1943 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1140 OF 2026 Abubakar Mines and Minerals ...Petitioner.
Versus The Additional Commissioner (AE) CGST, Kolhapur and Another ...Respondents.
—————— Mr. Kuldeep Kulkarni for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anand Kulkarni with mr. Shridhar Patil (Through VC) with Mr. Vaibhav Kupawade, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
—————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 02, 2026.
P. C. :
1.
By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the continued detention and the prohibition on the Petitioner’s goods pursuant to the order dated 26th September 2024 is contrary to Section 67(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) and seeks a direction of forthwith release of the Petitioner’s goods.
2.
The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have iled Aidavit-in-Reply dated 21st August 2026 and has stated in paragraph No.6 as under:
“6.
I further say and submit that after passing of prohibition order dated 26.09.2024 was issued in the Form GST INS-03 under section 67 (2) read with Rule 139 (4) of the CGST Rules 2017 remained valid for the period prescribed under Section 67 (7) as Gaikwad RD 1 of
3
33-WP-1943-2026.doc mentioned by the petitioner in para No.2 and 4 (a) of the petition is concern. I further say and submit that the initial Commissioner for a period of 3 months in accordance with law. Upon expiry of extended period, the prohibition order automatically came to an end, no separate order was required to revoke the said prohibition, however the petitioner seeks to portray the entire investigation as arbitrary merely because the prohibition order ceased to operate under Section 67 (7) of the Act. Such contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The expiry of prohibition order has no bearing on the legality of the investigation conducted by the department or on evidentiary material collected during the course of such investigation.” 3.
The above reproduced paragraph No.6 makes it clear that upon expiry of the extended period, the prohibition order automatically comes to an end. The relief, which is sought in the present petition, assailed the continued detention after the order of 26th September 2024, as violative of Section 67(7) of the CGST Act. As it is the Respondents’ own contention that the prohibition order comes to an end after the expiry of the extended period of six months, the petition is required to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
4.
It is clariied that the passing of the present order permitting the release of the goods in the petitioner’s favour, would have no bearing on the legality of the investigation conducted by the Department or on evidential material collected during the course of investigation.
Gaikwad RD 2 of
3
33-WP-1943-2026.doc 5.
The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
6.
The Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Gaikwad RD 3 of
3 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:
2026.09.02 20:57:59 +0530