Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition, finding no justification to bypass the alternative statutory remedy available to the Petitioner. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's submission that the plea regarding the denial of cross-examination could be raised before the appellate forum. Regarding the deposit of Rs. 17.92 crores, the Court noted that the Petitioner had deposited this amount as IGST dues for operations in Maharashtra. The Petitioner requested that this amount be adjusted towards the statutory pre-deposit for appeals concerning operations in other states, given that a single order covered operations in 24 states. This submission was not seriously opposed by the Respondents. The Court granted leave to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal through the physical mode, making the aforesaid prayer before the Appellate Authority, if advised. The Court explicitly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter.
Facts
The Petitioner, Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company Limited, filed a Writ Petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated October 29, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3. The primary ground for the challenge was the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses before the impugned order was issued. The Petitioner had deposited Rs. 17.92 crores as IGST dues for operations in Maharashtra. The Petitioner sought adjustment of this deposit against the statutory pre-deposit required for appeals concerning operations in other states, as a single order covered operations in 24 states. The Respondents did not seriously oppose this submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner was denied a fair hearing due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, thereby warranting intervention by the High Court through a writ petition? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that the denial of cross-examination was a fundamental procedural flaw, vitiating the Order-in-Original. Respondents' Argument: The Respondents did not explicitly argue on the merits of the cross-examination issue in the context of the writ petition. However, the Court noted the Petitioner's candid submission that this plea could also be raised before the appellate forum.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
14 WP 9556-25-C.DOC Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9556 OF 2025 Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company Limited …Petitioner Versus The Union of India and ors. …Respondents Mr. Sriram Sridharan with Mr. Shanmeya Dev, for the Petitioner. Mr. M. P. Sharma with Ms. Mamta Omle, for the Respondents. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 13th JULY 2026. PC:-
The Order-in-Original dated 29th October, 2024 passed by the Respondent No.3 is under challenge in this Writ Petition primarily on the ground that no opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses was granted to the Petitioner before the impugned order was issued. However, after hearing the submissions made at the Bar and in view of the candid submission by Mr. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that such a plea can also be taken before the Appellate forum, we do not find any justification in entertaining the Writ Petition, bypassing the alternative statutory remedy available to the Petitioner.
At this stage, Mr. Sridharan has further submitted that since the Petitioner has already deposited the sum of Rs.17.92 c
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.