Sandoz Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it. The reasoning for this decision is based on the order made in a connected matter, Writ Petition No. 13195 of 2025, and the same reasoning applies here. The Court's decision implies that a writ petition challenging a show cause notice is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of the merits of the case, and the Petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of responding to the notice. However, the Court granted the Petitioner's request to extend the time for filing a reply to the show cause notice until October 30, 2025. The Court emphasized that if the reply is filed by this date, it should be considered by the authorities in accordance with law and on its own merits. All contentions of the parties on merits, including those raised in the petition, are expressly kept open for determination during the disposal of the show cause notice. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sandoz Private Limited, has filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated June 16, 2025, issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The notice was issued by the revenue authorities. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to this petition is not detailed, other than the issuance of the show cause notice. The Petitioner is represented by Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate, and the Respondent-State is represented by Ms. S. D. Vyas, Additional Government Pleader.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, when the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of responding to the notice and pursuing further remedies thereafter? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner, through their counsel, sought to challenge the show cause notice. The judgment does not explicitly record the Petitioner's arguments for challenging the notice itself, but implicitly, they sought intervention from the High Court. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent-State, represented by Ms. S. D. Vyas, did not explicitly argue against the merits of the Petitioner's case in the provided text. However, the court's decision to dismiss the petition suggests an implicit reliance on the principle that such challenges should ordinarily be made before the adjudicating authority.