M/S Lasa Supergenerics Limited Thr. Its Managing Director vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Thr Secretary And Ors.

Original PDF →

WP/13208/2025HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM07048927202530 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAVIN SHESHRAO PATIL9 pages

For Petitioner: its Managing Director Dr. Omkar Pravin Herelekar

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The Petitioner, Lasa Supergenrics Limited, filed two writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 4524 of 2025 challenged an order dated December 3, 2024, by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri, for the tax period July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, demanding a total of Rs. 14,45,91,404. The Petitioner also challenged an order dated November 17, 2025, by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Kolhapur, which dismissed their appeal against the December 3, 2024 order on grounds of limitation. A further challenge was to an order dated November 4, 2025, by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri. Writ Petition No. 13208 of 2025 challenged an order dated December 24, 2024, by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East, concerning tax periods February 2018 to August 2023 and financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24, read with an order dated February 4, 2025. The Petitioner noted an incorrect aggregate amount in this order, which was subsequently rectified.

Held

The Court held that the order dated November 17, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Kolhapur, was unsustainable as it failed to consider Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This order was quashed and set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration on this limited ground. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the appeal or the issue of limitation. Regarding Writ Petition No. 13208 of 2025, the Court allowed it to be withdrawn with liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, given that the impugned order had been rectified. The Court also quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 4, 2025, by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri, as the Petitioner intended to file an appeal and deposit the pre-deposit amount, which would operate as a stay on recovery proceedings for the balance amount. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to take action in accordance with law after the disposal of the appeals. The order dated October 14, 2025, was also quashed and set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) on grounds of limitation, without considering Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is legally sustainable, particularly when the appeal was filed during the pendency of a writ petition? (Section 107 of the CGST Act, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963). The Petitioner argued that Section 14 of the Limitation Act should have been considered, as the appeal was filed while the writ petition was pending. They also contended that the writ petition was filed within 120 days as per Section 107(1) and (4) of the CGST Act, a point not considered by the appellate authority. They relied on M.P. Steel Corpn. v. CCE and a Bombay High Court order. The Revenue did not record specific arguments on this issue. 2. Whether the impugned order dated November 4, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri, which was based on outstanding dues including those under challenge in other proceedings and an amount for which an appeal was pending, should be quashed, especially considering the deposit of the pre-deposit amount under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act? The Petitioner argued that deposit under Section 107(6) should operate as a stay on recovery of the balance amount as per Section 107(7) of the CGST Act. The Revenue's stance was that the recovery amount due was Rs. 108,78,23,626/-.

Sections Cited

Section 107, Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP/13208/2025

WP/4524/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

16-WP-4524-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4524 OF 2025 Lasa Supergenrics Limited ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.13208 OF 2025 M/s. Lasa Supergenerics Limited ...Petitioner Through its Managing Director Dr. Omkar Pravin Herelekar Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Rajendra R. Kedge a/w Sunil S. Yadav, Umang D. Yadav, Harsh A. K. & Rohini Yadav, for the Petitioner in both WPs. Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Respondents in WP/13208/2025. Mr. A. A. Naik, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/4524/2025. —————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ. Date: March 30, 2026 P.C.: 1. In Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 3rd December 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri_501, Ratnagiri, by which, in GSTIN: 27AADCL0382Q1Z2, Order is passed for the tax period from Arjun 1 16-WP-4524-2025.doc 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018. The total amount payable, as per the said Order and as reflected on Page 96 of the Petition (internal Page 23 of the impugned Order), is as under: “No. Objection in brief Tax Interest Penalty Late Fee for GSTR-9 Total As enlisted above 4,06,85,765 5,39,73,732 4,06,85,765 92,46,142 14,45,91,404” 2. By amending the Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 17th November 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur in JCST/APP/F-0001/KOL/RAT/GST-88/2025-26/O-219 by which Appeal filed challenging impugned Order dated 3rd December 2024 has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 3. The Petitioner has also, by way of amendment in Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025, challenged the Order dated 4th November 2025 (Page 100F) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri_501, Ratnagiri. 4. The challenge in Writ Petition No.13208 of 2025 is to the Order dated 24th December 2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate in ME/JC/KG/231/GST/2024-25, concerning the Tax Period of February 2018 to August 2023 and Financial Years, 2017-18 to 2023-24 (Pages 144-180) read with Order dated 4th February 2025 (Page 190). Arjun 2 16-WP-4524-2025.doc 5. It is the submission of Mr. Kedge, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Order dated 24th December 2024 read with Order dated 4th February 2025 has, in aggregate, been passed for an amount of Rs.10,87,82,816/-, however, the same has been incorrectly mentioned as Rs.108,78,23,626/- and, therefore, the entire Order is null and void. Learned Counsel submits that the said Order has now been rectified by the Order dated 20th March 2026. 6. Mr. Kedge, learned Counsel stats that in view of the subsequent Order dated 20th March 2026, he has instructions to withdraw Writ Petition No.13208 of 2025 with liberty to challenge the said Order dated 24th December 2024 (Pages 144-180) along with the Order dated 4th February 2025 (Page 190), as rectified by the Order dated 20th March 2026 by filing statutory Appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). 7. Mr. Kedge, learned Counsel, submits that the Order dated 17th November 2025 impugned in Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025, has been passed only on the ground that the said Appeal is barred by limitation. He submits that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) has not been taken into consideration, as the said Appeal challenging the Order dated 3rd December 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri_501, Ratnagiri, was filed during the pendency of Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025. Arjun 3 16-WP-4524-2025.doc 8. It is submitted that the impugned Order in the said Appeal was passed on 3rd December 2024 and the Writ Petition was filed on 19th March 2025. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition has been filed within a period of 120 days, as contemplated under Sub-Section (1) read with Sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act. He submits that the said point has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Authority. To substantiate said contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the decision of M.P. Steel Corpn. v. CCE 1 as also on the Order dated 25th February 2026 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6344 of 2025. 9. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned Order dated 4th November 2025 of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri_501, Ratnagiri has been passed on the basis of the amount of dues which are the subject matter of Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.13208 of 2025, as also concerning the amount of Rs.15,35,58,804/-, regarding which an Appeal has been pending. He submits that in the said Appeal, the amount as contemplated under Sub- Section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act has already been deposited and, therefore, as per Sub-Section (7) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the same will operate as stay to the recovery proceedings for the 1 (2015) 7 SCC 58 Arjun 4 16-WP-4524-2025.doc balance amount. He, therefore, submits that the impugned Order dated 4th November 2025 be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Killedar, learned Counsel appearing for all the Respondents in Writ Petition No.13208 of 2025, submits that, as the rectification Order dated 20th March 2026 has been issued, the Petitioner now can adopt an appropriate alternate remedy of an Appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act. 11. Mr. Naik, learned AGP, for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025, states that the impugned Order dated 4th November 2025 has been passed, inter alia, on the ground that the recovery amount due is Rs.108,78,23,626/-. 12. It is an admitted position that now the said amount has now been reduced to Rs.20,10,95,638/-. As already noted herein above, Mr. Kedge, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that he has instructions to challenge the same. 13. Thus, after considering the submissions of the parties, the position that emerges is as under: WRIT PETITION NO.13208 OF 2025 i. As the impugned Order dated 24th December 2024 (Pages 144- 180) read with the Order dated 4th February 2025 (Page 190), stands rectified by the Order dated 20th March 2026, the Petitioner can challenge the said Orders by filing an Appeal. Arjun 5 16-WP-4524-2025.doc Thus, the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of an Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. WRIT PETITION NO.4524 OF 2025 i. As far as the Order dated 17th November 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur is concerned, perusal of the record shows that the said Order has been passed only on the ground of delay, however, Section 14 of the Limitation Act has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, on that ground alone, the said Order dated 17th November 2025 needs to be quashed and set aside. ii. As far as the impugned Order dated 4th November 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri_501, Ratnagiri is concerned, the same has been passed on the basis that an amount of Rs.138,59,73,834/- has been outstanding dues. A chart set out in the said Order dated 4th November 2025 reads as under: Sr No Order Reference No Date Period Amount of Dues (in Rs.) 1 ZD271224010136X 03/12/2024 JUL-2017 to MAR- 2018 14,45,91,404/-/ 2 ZD270225013851N 04/02/2025 JUL-2017 to MAR- 2018 108,78,23,626/- 3 ZD270825112631H 26/08/2025 Apr 2018 to Mar 2019 15,35,58,804/- Total 138,59,73,834/- Arjun 6 16-WP-4524-2025.doc (a) As far as the amount shown at Sr. No.1 of Rs.14,45,91,404/-, the said Order is challenged in Writ Petition No.4524 of 2025 and the Order passed in Appeal, as already observed herein above, needs to be quashed and set aside, as Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not considered. (b) As regards the amount of Rs.108,78,23,626/- the same stands rectified by the Order dated 20th March 2026 and the Petitioner will be challenging the said Order by filing an Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. (c) As far as the amount of Rs.15,35,58,804/- is concerned, the Appeal challenging the same is pending before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the SGST Act. 14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, both the Writ Petitions are

disposed of by passing the following Order: (a) Writ Petition No.13208 of 2025 is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to adopt an appropriate alternate remedy of Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act for challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 24th December 2024 (Pages 144- 180) passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate read with Order dated 4th February 2025 (Page 190) and the rectification Order dated 20th March 2026. All contentions in that behalf are expressly kept Arjun 7

16-WP-4524-2025.doc open. (b) Order dated 17th November 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur is quashed and set aside and the said Appeal bearing No. JCST/APP/F-0001/KOL/RAT/GST-88/2025-26/O-219 is remanded back to the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur, on the limited ground that Section 14 of the Limitation Act has not been considered. It is also clarified that all contentions are expressly kept open and this Court has not considered the merits of the Appeal as also the issue of limitation. (c) The impugned Order dated 4th November 2025 of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri_501, Ratnagiri is quashed and set aside as the Petitioner intends to file Appeal as set out herein above and will deposit amount as contemplated under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act and consequently, the recovery proceedings shall be deemed to be stayed. (d) Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax to take action in accordance with law after the disposal of the Appeals. Consequently, the Order dated 14th October 2025 (Pages 100A to 100D-1) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri_501, Ratnagiri, also stands quashed and set aside. Arjun 8

16-WP-4524-2025.doc

15.

Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun 9

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.