M/S Gajanana Scrap Traders Thr Proprietor Abhijeet Tanaji Powar vs. The Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Gajanan Scrap Traders, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 13/8/2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Department of Goods and Services Tax, Kolhapur. The order pertains to the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period 2023-24. The Respondents, Union of India and the State of Maharashtra, contended that an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, on instructions, agreed to avail this alternate remedy. The Writ Petition was filed on 4th December 2025.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. In light of the contention raised by the Respondents that an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available, the Petitioner, on instructions, agreed to avail this remedy. The Court noted that the impugned order was dated 13/8/2025 and the petition was filed on 4th December 2025. Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act contemplates an appeal to be filed within four months. Therefore, the Court directed that if the Petitioner files the appeal on or before 4/4/2026, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal on its merits. The Court expressly clarified that it had not considered the merits of the case and all contentions on merits were kept open. The Writ Petition was disposed of in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to maintain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition. However, by agreeing to avail the alternate remedy, they implicitly acknowledged its existence and suitability. Revenue/State's Argument: The Union of India and the State of Maharashtra argued that an alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to the Petitioner, and therefore, the Writ Petition should not be entertained. They relied on the statutory provisions of the Act.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1/3 22.wp.12768.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12768 OF 2025 M/S Gajanan Scrap Traders ... PETITIONER Versus Union of India & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. S. S. Chate, Advocate a/w Mr. Digvijay Kalekar, Advocate a/w Mr. Dayanand Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate a/w Mr. Shivraj Jagadale, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Union of India. Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State. CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMADAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : MARCH 07, 2026. P.C. : . Heard Mr. Chate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Killedar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Union of India and Mr. Vanarase, learned AGP for the Respondent/State.
By this Writ Petition iled under Article 226 of the 2/3 22.wp.12768.2025.odt Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of order No. STO/C-0110/ITC Blocking(23-24)/2025-26/B-860, dated 13/8/2025 passed by the State Tax Oicer, Department of Goods and Services Tax, Kolhapur.
At the outset, Mr. Killedar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Vanarase, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State states that an alternate remedy of statutory Appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 107 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is available to the Petitioner.
In view of the said contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents, Mr. Chate, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that the Petitioner will avail alternate remedy of Appeal.
It is required to be noted that the impugned order is dated 13/8/2025. The present Petition has been iled on 4th December, 2025. Sub-section (1) of Section 107 read with Sub-
3/3 22.wp.12768.2025.odt section (4) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 contemplates that Appeal to be iled within a period of four months.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, if the Appeal is iled on or before 4/4/2026, then the Appellate Authority shall consider the Appeal on merits.
Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
It is clariied that this Court has not considered the merits and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open. [PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] vijaya VIJAYA GOURISHANKAR YADAO GOURISHANKAR YADAO Date: 2026.03.09 10:21:21 +0530
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.