Dismissed¶8

Intec Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India

Bombay HC2 Sept 2025WP/2817/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC writ petition dismissed; challenge to show cause notice dated 16 June 2025 for want of jurisdiction rejected; Bharat Forge (2022) 17 SCC 188 para 79 distinguished as torn out of context; exhaustion of alternate remedies; bald jurisdictional pleas and attempts to stall show cause proceedings not entertained; Oberoi Constructions W.P.(L) No. 33260 of 2023 followed; costs Rs. 25,000 to Government KEM Hospital; Intec Logistics Private Limited; supplier Gujarat Petrochem Industries Pvt. Ltd.; coram M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

What did the court decide?

None; Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the Government KEM Hospital within two weeks, with a compliance report to be filed by 03 October 2025; observations are prima facie only and all contentions of all parties left open. ¶8

Intec Logistics Private Limited vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the show cause notice dated 16 June 2025 issued to the Petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction, given that the services were supplied by Gujarat Petrochem Industries Pvt. Ltd. and, per paragraph 79 of Bharat Forge, it is the officer dealing with the supplier who would have jurisdiction. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The sentence from Bharat Forge relied on by the Petitioner is prima facie torn out of its context; the Court cannot agree that the impugned show cause notice is an exercise wholly without jurisdiction, and no ex-facie lack of jurisdiction is made out. In any event, the Petitioner can raise all permissible defences and objections in response to the show cause notice.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Deviation from the practice of exhausting alternate remedies is permitted only where the petitioner makes out an exceptional case admitting of no serious factual disputes; it cannot be permitted on vague pleadings or by relying on observations dehors the context in which they were made. Attempting to stall show cause proceedings by directly approaching the Court is taking a chance and delaying proceedings.

¶5

Key takeaways

Following the reasoning in Oberoi Constructions Limited and the decisions relied upon therein, the Court declines to entertain the Petition.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2817 of 2025 — Intec Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.; 16 September 2025): Petition challenging a show cause notice dated 16 June 2025 as wholly without jurisdiction, founded on paragraph 79 of Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 188 ('it is the officer, dealing with the supplier, who would have jurisdiction'), because the services had been supplied by Gujarat Petrochem Industries Pvt. Ltd. HELD: the quoted sentence, read prima facie out of context, does not establish an ex-facie lack of jurisdiction; the petitioner may raise all permissible defences in reply to the notice; deviation from exhaustion of alternate remedies requires an exceptional case free of serious factual disputes and cannot rest on vague pleadings or observations dehors context; following Oberoi Constructions Ltd. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (L) No. 33260 of 2023, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the Government KEM Hospital within two weeks, compliance report by 03 October 2025; observations prima facie only, all contentions left open.

¶1

19-WP-2817-2025(1).DOCX

¶2

Chaitanya

¶3

CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV

¶4

Digitally signed byCHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Date: 2025.09.17 17:45:23 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2817 OF 2025 Intec Logistics Private Limited … Petitioner Versus The Union of India And Ors. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Rahul C. Thakar i/b Mr. Chandrakant B. Thakar, for Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED : 16 September 2025

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a challenge to a show cause notice dated 16 June 2025.

¶10

Mr. Thakar submits that the notice is without jurisdiction because according to him, in the case of Union of India And Ors. V/s. Bharat Forge Limited And Anr.¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 79 that ‘there is also no dispute that it is the officer, dealing with the supplier, who would have jurisdiction in the matter.’ Mr. Thakar submits that in this case, Gujarat Petrochem Industries Pvt. Ltd. had supplied certain services to the Petitioner and

¶11

1 (2022) 17 SCC 188

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

19-WP-2817-2025(1).DOCX

¶14

therefore, the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner by the officer having jurisdiction over the Petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that, at the highest, the proper officer could have issued notice to the Supplier and not the petitioner.

¶15

We have considered the above contentions as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Forge Limited (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in fact, allowed the Appeal filed by the Union of India. In the penultimate paragraph, it is observed that there is also no dispute that it is the officer, dealing with the supplier, who would have jurisdiction in the matter.

¶16

Based upon the above sentence, which, is prima facie, being torn out of the context, we cannot agree that the impugned show cause notice is an exercise wholly without jurisdiction. In any event, the Petitioner can raise all permissible defences and objections in response to the show cause notice. This attempt to stall the show cause proceedings by directly approaching this Court cannot be allowed to prevail. This is a case of taking a chance and delaying the proceedings, quite unmindful of the pressures on the dockets of this court. Neither are any exceptional circumstances made out, nor are the pleadings sufficient to present a clear picture and conclude any ex-facie lack of jurisdiction.

¶17

In this Court, there are several Petitions, where the Petitioners insist upon bypassing the practice of exhaustion of

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

19-WP-2817-2025(1).DOCX

¶20

alternate remedies by making bald allegations about proceedings being wholly without jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice. Though these are the well-known exceptions in the context of exhaustion of alternate remedies, the deviation from this practice is permitted upon the Petitioners making out an exceptional case which admits of no serious factual disputes. Such deviation cannot be permitted based upon vague pleadings or by relying upon observations dehors the context in which the same are made. This is clearly one such case. The Petitioner has attempted to take a chance to see if some interim relief could be wriggled out, and the show-cause proceedings stalled or delayed.

¶21

In the case of Oberoi Constructions Limited V/s. Union of India And Ors., Writ Petition (L) No. 33260 of 2023, we have referred to several decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the issue of exhaustion of alternate remedies. By following the reasoning in the said decision and the decisions relied upon therein, we decline to entertain this Petition.

¶22

To contain the flood of such petitions and to discourage the tendency of taking “chances” or at times, undue advantage of the pressure on the Court’s docket, we dismiss this Petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, which the Petitioner shall pay to the Government KEM Hospital, within two weeks from today. A compliance report must be filed in this Court by 03 October 2025.

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

19-WP-2817-2025(1).DOCX

¶25

The observations in this order are only prima facie, and they are not intended to prejudice the Petitioner’s case should the Petitioner respond to the show cause notice. All contentions of all parties are explicitly left open. The Petition is dismissed with costs for the above reasons.

¶26

(Advait M. Sethna, J)

¶27

(M.S. Sonak, J.)

¶28

Page 4 of 4

Intec Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intec Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure and Realty vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Biren Shah vs Union of India

Azaria Corp LLP vs The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Mum Vat E 803 Nodal Division I

Hcc Mms Joint venture vs Union of India

Rajesh Gouri vs Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Swati Enterprises vs Union of India