Disposed

Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Bombay HC14 Oct 2024WP/14082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a show cause notice for a demand of Rs. 5.21 crores regarding blood glucose monitoring instruments. Court noted ambiguity regarding whether urine glucose monitoring instruments were also included and directed respondents to clarify the scope and break-up of the demand amount before proceeding with adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on adjudication of show cause notice; direction to file affidavit clarifying demand scope and break-up by 14 November 2024.

Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

ppn 1 13.wp-14082.24.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2024.10.1511:02:44 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.14082 OF 2024

¶4

Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr. Mihir Deshmukh, Mr. S. Gupte i/by PDS Legal for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. P. P. More, AGP for the State. Mr. Karan Adik a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATE : 14 October 2024

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

We have noted the objection based on alternate remedy. Still, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the commodity which is the subject matter of the impugned show cause notice relates only to Blood glucose monitoring instruments, i.e., Glucometer and has nothing to do with Urine glucose monitoring instruments.

¶15

Mr. Adik, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the above statement may not be prima facie correct. He refers to the statement of Mr. Vishal C. Shanbhag, Head of Finance of the petitioner in which, he has stated that the petitioner deals in sale of two commodities viz. Blood glucose monitoring and Urine glucose

¶16

ppn 2 13.wp-14082.24.docx

¶17

monitoring.

¶18

The statement of Mr. Shanbhag, no doubt, refers to two commodities based on Blood glucose monitoring and Urine glucose monitoring instruments. However, from that, we cannot conclude that the impugned show cause notice proposing to raise demand therein pertains also to Urine glucose monitoring instruments. Besides in the show cause notice, we find that no break-up is given about the demanded amount of Rs.5.21 crores.

¶19

In the above circumstances and considering the Judgment dated 10 November 2022 in Writ Petition No.5992 of 2021, we direct the concerned respondents to file an affidavit indicating clearly whether the impugned demand includes Urine glucose monitoring instruments and if so, the break-up of the amount of Rs.5.21 crores demanded.

¶20

The above affidavit must be filed and served by 14 November 2024.

¶21

List this matter on 25 November 2024 for further consideration.

¶22

Until next date, adjudication of show cause notice should not be proceeded with.

¶23

(Jitendra Jain, J .)

¶24

( M. S. Sonak, J.)

Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Narayan Kakde and 3 Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai vs Vardhan Associates

Pandit Nana Londhe and Ors. vs the Regional Officer Maharashtra Develoment Co-Op Pune and Ors.

Prabha Atmaram Anande vs the State of Maharashtra by Government Pleader

Lajawab Fabrics vs Union of India and Ors.

Covestro India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs Group II and Anr.