Niraj Dilip Shah vs. State Of Maharashtra Thro. Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Niraj Dilip Shah, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging two orders dated December 23, 2024, and December 24, 2024, issued by Respondent No. 2. These orders pertained to the tax periods 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively, and involved a demand for tax. The petitioner contended that these orders were arbitrary, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction, as they deliberately ignored the machinery provisions under Rule 42 of the MGST/CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner sought to have these orders quashed and for the respondents to reconsider the case in light of Rule 42, considering the reversal of tax determined and intimated by the petitioner. The petition was filed on March 7, 2025, challenging orders passed on December 23 and 24, 2024.
Held
The Court observed that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal to challenge the impugned orders. The adjudication orders were passed on December 23, 2024, and the present writ petition was filed on March 7, 2025, which was within three months from the date of the order. However, the Court found it appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it should be considered on its own merits without any objection as to limitation. The Court granted the petitioner the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering that the petitioner had been bonafide pursuing the present writ petition. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the orders dated 23.12.2024 and 24.12.2024, demanding tax for the periods 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively, are arbitrary and illegal, having been passed without jurisdiction and in deliberate ignorance of the machinery provisions under Rule 42 of the MGST/CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned demand orders were arbitrary and illegal as they were passed without jurisdiction and deliberately ignored the mandatory machinery provisions provided under Rule 42 of the MGST/CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to reconsider the case in accordance with Rule 42, taking into account the reversal of tax determined and intimated by the petitioner. The petitioner also sought condonation of the 10% deposit requirement if directed to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/MGST Act, 2017. Revenue/State's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or its representatives. However, the court noted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal.
Sections Cited
Rule 42, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6344 OF 2025 Niraj Dilip Shah. ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Rajendra Kedge with Mr. Sunil Yadav, for Petitioner. Ms. Savita Prabhune, for Respondent – State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs: “(a) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the naature of CERTIORARI, calling for the record of proceedings from Respondent No.2 and to thereafter be further please to se aside and quash the orders dated 23.12.2024 (Exhibit-’K’) & dtd. 24.12.2024 (Exhibit-’L’) connected demand of tax arbitrary and illegal since the same is confirmed completely & deliberately ignoring the machinery provisions provided under Rule 42 of MGST/CGST Rules, 2017 and therefore passed without juri iction. (b) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding Respondent No.1 and 2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner within the parameters set by Rule 42 of CGST/MGST Rules, 2017 and after considering the reversal determined and intimated by the petitioner to Respondent No.2. (c) The Hon’ble Court may be please to condone the 10% deposit to be made in case the Hon’ble Court directs the Petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 of CGST/MGST Act, 2017 since the orders dtd. 23.12.2024 for tax period 2018-19 and orders dtd. 24.12.2024 for tax period 2019-20 are ex- facie arbitrary & illegal.”
At the outset we may observe that the petitioner has a remedy of an appeal to challenge the impugned order, however, within a period three months from the P. V. Rane PRASHANT VILAS RANE PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2026.02.27 20:40:04 +0530
DOC date of the impugned adjudication order which was passed on 23 December 2024, the present petition was filed on 7 March 2025. 3. In our opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate that the petitioner takes recourse to the statutory appeal as provided under law. If such appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, the same be considered on its own merits without an objection as to the limitation, as the petitioner was bonafide pursuing the present petition, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 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.