Disposed¶22

Ekta Realtors Earlier known as Ekta Shubham Ventures v. Union of India

Bombay HC8 Dec 2025WP/4453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ekta Realtors; Ekta Shubham Ventures; Union of India; Section 73 CGST Act; MGST Act; GST order dated 26 June 2024; Notification No. 4 of 2018; Notification No. 56 of 2023; alternate remedy; relegation to appeal; predeposit; limitation; Appellate Authority; Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 4453 of 2024; M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Petitioners relegated (at their option) to the alternate remedy of Appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024, to be filed after complying with prescribed legal formalities including predeposit within six weeks; Appellate Authority requested to entertain the Appeal on merits without adverting to limitation; all contentions except limitation kept open. ¶22

Ekta Realtors Earlier known as Ekta Shubham Ventures vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Validity on merits of the order dated 26 June 2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent under Section 73 of the CGST Act/MGST Act. +3 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Petition is disposed of by relegating the Petitioners, if they so desire, to the alternate remedy of Appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024; in such Appeal the Petitioners are entitled to raise all grounds on merits.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Appellate Authority is requested to entertain the Appeal on merits and in accordance with law without adverting to limitation, because the Petition was instituted on 14 September 2024 within the prescribed limitation period for filing an Appeal.ratio¶23
All contentions of all parties except the contention based on limitation are kept explicitly open.ratio¶24
Conditionally, if the Appeal fails, the Court indicated it could reserve liberty to the Petitioners to challenge Notification Nos. 4 of 2018 and 56 of 2023.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition challenging an order dated 26 June 2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent under Section 73 of the CGST Act/MGST Act, along with Notification No. 4 of 2018 dated 25 January 2018 and Notification No. 56 of 2023 dated 28 December 2023, disposed of by relegating the Petitioners to the alternate remedy of Appeal. Since the Petition had been instituted on 14 September 2024, within the prescribed limitation period for filing an Appeal, the Appellate Authority was requested to entertain the Appeal on merits without adverting to limitation, provided it was filed after complying with all formalities including predeposit within six weeks. All contentions except limitation were kept explicitly open, and liberty was indicated to challenge the Notifications if the Appeal failed.

¶1

10-WP-4453-2024.DOCX

¶2

Chaitanya

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4453 OF 2024

¶5

Digitally signed by CHAITANYA CHAITANYA ASHOK ASHOK JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2025.12.09 14:02:55 +0530

¶6

M/s. Ekta Realtors (Earlier knows as Ekta Shubham Ventures) And Anr.

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India And Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Naresh Jain a/w Ms. Neha Anchlia, for Petitioners. Ms. Jyoti Chavan , Addl.G.P., for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : M.S. Sonak &

¶12

Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 08 December 2025

¶14

PC:-

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 26 June 2024, issued by the 3^rd Respondent, under Section 73 of the CGST Act/MGST Act.

¶17

The Petitioners, in addition to the challenge to the impugned order, have also challenged Notification No. 4 of 2018 dated 25 January 2018 and Notification No. 56 of 2023 dated 28 December 2023.

¶18

Mr. Jain categorically stated that the Petitioners’ challenge to the impugned order dated 26 June 2024 was not restricted to the issue of Notification Nos. 4 of 2018 and 56 of 2023. He stated that in addition to this contention, the Petitioners were also challenging the order dated 26 June 2024 on merits.

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

10-WP-4453-2024.DOCX

¶21

Considering the above submission, we think that it would only be appropriate if the Petitioners are relegated to instituting an Appeal against the order of 26 June 2024. In such Appeal, the Petitioners will be entitled to raise all grounds on merits. If the Appeal succeeds on merits, then, possibly, there would be no occasion to challenge the Notification Nos. 4 of 2018 and 56 of 2023. However, if the Appeal fails, we can always reserve the Petitioners liberty to challenge the Notification Nos. 4 of 2018 and 56 of 2023.

¶22

Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition by relegating the Petitioners, if the Petitioners so desire, to avail of the alternate remedy of Appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024.

¶23

Mr. Jain states that the Appeal would be filed after complying with all prescribed legal formalities including predeposit within six weeks from today. If this is done, then, we request the Appellate Authority to entertain the Appeal on merits and in accordance with law but without adverting to the issue limitation. This is because the Petitioner had instituted this Petition on 14 September 2024 within the prescribed period of limitation for filing an Appeal. The Petitioner, was bonafide pursing this matter. Therefore, we dispose of this Petition with liberty in the above terms.

¶24

All contentions of all parties except the contention based on limitation are kept explicitly open. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶25

(Advait M. Sethna, J)

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Ekta Realtors Earlier known as Ekta Shubham Ventures v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ekta Realtors Earlier known as Ekta Shubham Ventures 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parasmal Uttamchand Jain vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Anr.

Samarjit Samrendra Bose and Anr. vs Rbl Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Ujjwala Chetan Sanas vs Union of India

New Era Enterprises vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Deepanshu Exim vs Union of India

Mohnish Narayan Shete vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader