Swati Sheetal Malara Swati Sarees Thr Its Proprietor Swati Sheetal Malara vs. The Commissioner State GST Bhavan Aurangabad And Another
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition partly. It held that on the condition of the Petitioner depositing Rs. 7,000/- with Respondent No. 2 by 08/09/2025, the impugned order dated 20/09/2024 would stand quashed and set aside. The proceedings were remitted back to Respondent No. 2, who was directed to consider the record, follow due procedure, and pass an appropriate order within 30 days. The Petitioner was also directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 on 08/09/2025 with the relevant tax returns. The Court's decision to remit the matter back to the authority, despite the objection regarding limitation, aligns with previous orders in similar cases based on concessions from the State.
Facts
The Petitioner, Swati Sheetal Malara (Swati Sarees), filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 20/09/2024 passed by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent State GST Commissioner objected to the petition, arguing that while the High Court has jurisdiction, the petition was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The Petitioner's counsel was present. The Court noted that similar matters had been decided based on concessions from the learned AGP, remitting the cases back to the authority for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition despite the existence of a prescribed limitation period, given that the Appellate Tribunal has not been established. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner implicitly argues for the High Court's jurisdiction by filing the writ petition. The judgment does not explicitly record the Petitioner's arguments on this point, but their action suggests reliance on the High Court's inherent powers. Respondents' Argument: The learned AGP for the Respondents strongly objected, contending that although the High Court has jurisdiction and no Appellate Tribunal is established, the Petitioner must adhere to the prescribed period of limitation for filing the petition before this Court.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
965-WP-10557-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 965 WRIT PETITION NO. 10557 OF 2025 Swati Sheetal Malara Swati Sarees Thr Its Proprietor Swati Sheetal Malara ….Petitioner VERSUS The Commissioner State Gst Bhavan Aurangabad And Another …..Respondents
….. Mr. Sharma Alok Madangopal, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. K. Lakhotiy, AGP for the Respondents - State ….. CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : 26.08.2025 PER COURT :
Heard.
Learned AGP takes strong objection to allow this Petition. According to him, though there is no Appellate Tribunal to have been established and jurisdiction of this Court very much available, the Petitioner has to come within a prescribed period of limitation before this Court.
This Court has, however in Writ Petition No.11833 of 2022 and other matters based on concession given by learned AGP, passed the orders relegating the Petitioner back to Respondent No.2 to have the matter decided on its own merits. 1
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.