Lasa Supergenrics Limited vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Commissioner Of GST State And Ors

Original PDF →

WP/4524/2025HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM07016795202530 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 SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The Petitioner, Lasa Supergenrics Limited, filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. Writ Petition No. 4524 of 2025 challenged an order dated 3rd December 2024 by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri, for the tax period 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018, demanding a total of Rs. 14,45,91,404. This petition was amended to also challenge an order dated 17th November 2025 by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Kolhapur, which dismissed the Petitioner's appeal against the 3rd December 2024 order on grounds of limitation. A further amendment challenged an order dated 4th November 2025 by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri. Writ Petition No. 13208 of 2025 challenged an order dated 24th December 2024 by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East, concerning tax periods from February 2018 to August 2023 and financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24, read with an order dated 4th February 2025. The Petitioner later sought to withdraw this petition due to a rectification order dated 20th March 2026, intending to file a statutory appeal.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 17th November 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) in Writ Petition No. 4524 of 2025 must be quashed and set aside on the ground that Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not considered. The Court found that the appeal was filed during the pendency of the writ petition, and this aspect was crucial for determining limitation. Consequently, this appeal was remanded back to the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) for reconsideration on this limited ground, with all other contentions and the merits of the appeal expressly kept open. Regarding the impugned order dated 4th November 2025 by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri, the Court quashed and set it aside. This was based on the Petitioner's intention to file an appeal for the amount of Rs. 108,78,23,626/- (which had been rectified) and the fact that an appeal for another portion of the dues (Rs. 15,35,58,804/-) was pending, with the statutory pre-deposit made, implying a stay on recovery for the balance under Section 107(7) of the CGST Act. Writ Petition No. 13208 of 2025 was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, given the rectification of the order and the availability of an alternate remedy. The Court explicitly stated that it had not considered the merits of the appeals or the issue of limitation in detail, except for the specific point regarding Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation, considering Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the pendency of Writ Petition No. 4524 of 2025 at the time of filing the appeal? 2. Whether the impugned order dated 4th November 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ratnagiri, is sustainable, given that a portion of the demand pertains to amounts under challenge in other proceedings or appeals where statutory pre-deposits have been made? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the period contemplated under Section 107(1) and (4) of the CGST Act, as it was filed during the pendency of the writ petition, and Section 14 of the Limitation Act should have been considered. Reliance was placed on M.P. Steel Corpn. v. CCE and a Bombay High Court order in WP No. 6344 of 2025. Regarding the 4th November 2025 order, the Petitioner contended that since a pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act was made for an appeal concerning a part of the dues, Section 107(7) of the CGST Act should operate as a stay on recovery for the balance amount. Respondents' arguments: The Respondent-State argued that the impugned order dated 4th November 2025 was passed due to outstanding dues of Rs. 108,78,23,626/-. The Respondent-Union of India, through its counsel, submitted that as a rectification order had been issued, the Petitioner could adopt the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act for WP No. 13208 of 2025.

Sections Cited

Section 107, Section 14, Section 107(1), Section 107(4), Section 107(6), Section 107(7)

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 relected 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 iled 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 rectiied 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 rectiied by the Order dated 20th March 2026 by iling 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 iled 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 iled on 19th March 2025. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition has been iled 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 rectiication 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 rectiied by the Order dated 20th March 2026, the Petitioner can challenge the said Orders by iling 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 rectiied by the Order dated 20th March 2026 and the Petitioner will be challenging the said Order by iling 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 rectiication 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 clariied 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 ile 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.