Roy Constructions PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
Roy Constructions Pvt Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 13.10.2025 passed by Respondent No. 5, and Demand Recovery Certificate (DRC-01As) dated 19.11.2025 and 20.11.2025, also issued by Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner sought declarations that Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority, that the negative blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by Respondent No. 5 is illegal and beyond Rule 86A of MGST Rules, and sought to quash the impugned order and DRC-01As. The Petitioner also prayed for a direction to Respondent No. 5 to refrain from taking further action. The petition was listed for hearing on 5 February 2026.
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner, relying on the decisions in "Rawman Metal & Alloys Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax" and "Pratik Giriraj Tiwari vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.", intended to approach the competent officer of the respondent regarding the concurrent finding on the utilization of input tax credit. The Court directed that if the Petitioner files such an application within 10 days, it shall be decided within 15 days from the date of filing, after granting an opportunity of hearing. All contentions of the Petitioner concerning this aspect were expressly kept open. The Court disposed of the petition in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the office of Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority to take action against the Petitioner in the present facts, as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules? 2. Whether the negative blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) carried out by Respondent No. 5 is illegal, invalid, and beyond the scope of Rule 86A of the MGST Rules? Petitioner's contentions: The Petitioner argued that the negative blocking of ITC by Respondent No. 5 was illegal and beyond the powers conferred by Rule 86A of MGST Rules. They also sought a declaration that Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority. The Petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision in "Rawman Metal & Alloys Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax" and an order of the Nagpur Bench in "Pratik Giriraj Tiwari vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors." concerning restoration of cancelled registrations. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the Revenue or Union of India regarding the issues raised by the Petitioner.
Sections Cited
Rule 86A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
904WP-17262-2025.DOC Mr. Prithwiraj Choudhari, Ms. Kausarjahan Sayed with Mr. Aaush Desai i/b. Pythagoras Legal, for Petitioner. Ms.Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. Govt. Pleader with Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the State. Mr. Ram Ochani with Abhishek R. Mishra, for Respondent No.2. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 5 February 2026. P.C.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs: a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the office of the Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority to take action against the Petitioner, if any, in the facts of the present case; (b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the negative blocking of ITC carried out by the Respondent No. 5 is illegal, invalid and beyond the provisions of Rule 86A of MGST Rules; (c) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for calling for the records of the present case and after going through the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 13.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 5 (Exhibit “H”) (d) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for calling for the records of the present case and after going through the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the DRC-01As dated 19.11.2025 and 20.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.5 (Exhibits "J1" to "J3"); (e) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under P. V. Rane PRASHANT VILAS RANE PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2026.02.10 19:37:44 +0530
904WP-17262-2025.DOC Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondent No. 5 itself, its officers, subordinates, servants and agents to refrain from taking any further action against the Petitioner or continue with any proceedings;”
After this petition was heard and relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in “Rawman Metal & Alloys Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Maharashtra & Ors.2 wherein the Court directed the GST authority to restore cancelled registrations, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that, with regard to the concurrent finding of the input tax credit qua the issue on full or proportionate utilization of the available input tax credit, the petitioner intends to approach the competent officer of the respondent. If any such application is made within 10 days, the same shall be decided within 15 days from the date of filing of the application, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
All contentions of the petitioner in that regard are expressly kept open.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 1 (2025)36 Centax 177(Bom.) 2 Writ Petition No.6928/2025 order dt. 09./01/2026 P. V. Rane
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.