Ganesh Madan Bafina And Ors vs. The Superintendent Grp Iii And Ors
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the liberties as prayed for by the Petitioners. The primary finding was that the Petitioners should be permitted to raise the issues, including the GST on TDR, before the Appellate Authority. The Court clarified that these liberties are not absolute and must be exercised within legal and permissible limits. No specific finding was made on the merits of the GST on TDR issue itself, as the Court was disposing of the writ petition based on the subsequent filing of an appeal. The operative direction was to allow the Petitioners to pursue their appeal with the specified liberties. Any interim orders were vacated, and interim applications were disposed of.
Facts
The Petitioners, Ganesh Madan Bafna and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order or action by the Superintendent (Grp-III), HQ-Preventive Section, CGST, Commissionerate of Central Goods & Service Tax, Pune, and others. Post the institution of the petition, the adjudicating authorities passed an order in original. The Petitioners have since appealed this order before the Appellate Authority, and this appeal is currently pending. The Petitioners' counsel acknowledged that due to these subsequent developments, the writ petition could be disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioners should be permitted to raise the issues presented in this writ petition before the Appellate Authority, specifically including the question of whether GST is payable on Transferable Development Rights (TDR)? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioners, through their counsel, sought permission to raise all issues previously raised in the writ petition before the Appellate Authority. They specifically highlighted the contentious issue of GST applicability on TDR. They also requested that if the Appellate Authority rules against them, they should retain the liberty to raise all these issues again. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the issues to be raised before the Appellate Authority or the reservation of liberty.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
(4) WP-16181.23.DOCX lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16181 OF 2023 Ganesh Madan Bafna and ors. : Petitioners Versus The Superintendent (Grp-III), HQ-Preventive Section, CGST, Commissionerate of Central Goods & Service Tax, Pune – II and ors. : Respondents ______________________________________________________ Ms Nikita K Dharamshi i/by C K Legal, for the Petitioners. Mr Vijay Kantaria a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad (Through V.C.) a/w Ms. Priyanka Singh, for Respondent No.
Ms Sweta Shah a/w Mr. Garuava Sahare, Mr. Abhishek Ray, Mr. Shreyas Zarkar i/by Mr. A P Kulkarni for Respondent No.2 - PMC. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED: 11 September 2025 PC:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Ms. Nikita Dharamshi, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, fairly points out that post the institution of this Petition, the adjudicating authorities have passed the order in original. She further points out that the Petitioners have appealed such an order before the Appellate Authority and the appeal is pending. Therefore, she agrees that this Petition cou
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.