Samrat Pratishthan Through Its Secretary Rahul Vasantrao Waghmare vs. The Commissioner State GST Bhavan And Others

Original PDF →

WP/7259/2025HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM03022168202526 June 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHAT,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NEERAJ P. DHOTE2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Samrat Pratishthan, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated May 8, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 3. The respondents, including the Commissioner of State GST, objected to the petition. The petitioner argued that despite the absence of an Appellate Tribunal and the availability of the High Court's jurisdiction, they had to approach the court within the prescribed limitation period. However, this Court, in previous writ petitions, had allowed similar matters based on concessions from the Additional Government Pleader, remitting the cases back to the concerned authority for a decision on merits.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition partly. It quashed and set aside the impugned order dated May 8, 2025, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 7,000/- with Respondent No. 3 by July 7, 2025. The proceedings were remitted back to Respondent No. 3, who was directed to consider the record, follow due procedure, and pass an appropriate order, potentially imposing conditions as permitted by the rules. The petitioner was also directed to appear before Respondent No. 3 on July 7, 2025, with the relevant tax returns. This entire exercise was to be completed within 30 days. The court's decision was influenced by its previous practice in similar cases where matters were remitted back to the authority for a decision on merits, based on concessions from the revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition when an alternative remedy of appeal might be available, considering the absence of an Appellate Tribunal and the petitioner's adherence to limitation periods (Question of law). The petitioner contended that given the non-establishment of the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court's jurisdiction being available, the petition was maintainable. They relied on the High Court's previous orders in similar matters, specifically Writ Petition No. 11833 of 2022, where the court had, based on concessions from the Additional Government Pleader, remitted cases back to the authority for a decision on merits. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, strongly objected to the petition, arguing that the petitioner had to approach the High Court within the prescribed limitation period, implying a procedural or jurisdictional challenge.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

914-WP-7259-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7259 OF 2025 Samrat Pratishthan ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Commissioner, State GST Bhavan, and Others ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. A.M. Sharma, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.K. Tambe, Addl.G.P. for respondent no.1 - State .... CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ DATE : 26th JUNE, 2025 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Learned Addl.G.P. 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. 3. This Court has, however in Writ Petition No. 11833 of 2022 and other matters based on concession given by learned A.G.P., passed the orders relegating the petitioner back to Respondent No.3 to have the matter decided on its own merits. 1 / 2 2025:BHC-AUG:16649-DB 914-WP-7259-25.odt 4. In view of the same, we allow this writ petition in terms of the

following order :- ORDER (I)

The writ petition is partly allowed. On the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) with Respondent No.3 - Authority on or before 07th July, 2025, the impugned order dated 08th May, 2025 to stand quashed and set aside. (II)

The proceedings are remitted back to Respondent No.3 - Authority. (III)

The petitioner shall appear before Respondent No.3 - Authority on 07th July, 2025 alongwith tax returns for the period in question. (IV)

Respondent No.3 - Authority would consider the record by following due procedure of law and pass an appropriate order on such conditions as the rules may permit. (V)

The above exercise would be completed within 30 days. ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) S 2 / 2

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.