Disposed¶28

M/S Gajanana Scrap Traders Thr Proprietor Abhijeet Tanaji Powar v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC7 Jan 2026WP/12768/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gajanan Scrap Traders v. Union of India; Bombay HC Kolhapur Circuit Bench, WP No. 12768 of 2025, decided 07-03-2026; Article 226 challenge to GST order No. STO/C-0110/ITC Blocking(23-24)/2025-26/B-860 dated 13/8/2025 of State Tax Officer, Kolhapur; disposed of on alternate-remedy ground: appeal under S.107(1) r/w S.107(4) Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 to be filed by 4/4/2026 to be considered on merits; no costs; merits expressly kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107(1) of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017; if the appeal is filed on or before 4/4/2026, the Appellate Authority shall consider it on merits; no order as to costs; all contentions on merits expressly kept open. ¶28

M/S Gajanana Scrap Traders Thr Proprietor Abhijeet… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition challenging the GST order should be pursued, or whether the Petitioner should avail the alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, given the four-month limitation under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4).

¶23

Court's answer

Noting that the impugned order is dated 13/8/2025 and the Petition was filed on 4th December, 2025, and that Sub-section (1) of Section 107 read with Sub-section (4) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 contemplates an appeal to be filed within four months, if the Appeal is filed on or before 4/4/2026 the Appellate Authority shall consider the Appeal on merits.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Court clarified that it has not considered the merits, and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench), Writ Petition No. 12768 of 2025, decided 07-03-2026 (Jamadar and Patil, JJ.): M/s Gajanan Scrap Traders, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged order No. STO/C-0110/ITC Blocking(23-24)/2025-26/B-860 dated 13/8/2025 of the State Tax Officer, Department of Goods and Services Tax, Kolhapur. Respondents' counsel stated that an alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available, and the Petitioner, on instructions, agreed to avail it. Noting that the impugned order was dated 13/8/2025, the Petition was filed on 4th December, 2025, and that Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) contemplates an appeal within four months, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing that if the appeal is filed on or before 4/4/2026 the Appellate Authority shall consider it on merits, with no order as to costs; the Court expressly did not consider the merits and all contentions on merits were kept open.

¶1

1/3 22.wp.12768.2025.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12768 OF 2025

¶5

M/S Gajanan Scrap Traders

¶6

... PETITIONER

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India & Ors.

¶9

... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S. S. Chate, Advocate a/w Mr. Digvijay Kalekar, Advocate a/w Mr. Dayanand Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate a/w Mr. Shivraj Jagadale, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Union of India.

¶12

Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State.

¶13

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMADAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

¶14

DATE : MARCH 07, 2026.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

. Heard Mr. Chate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

¶17

Killedar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Union of India and

¶18

Mr. Vanarase, learned AGP for the Respondent/State.

¶19

By this Writ Petition iled under Article 226 of the

¶20

2/3 22.wp.12768.2025.odt

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

It is required to be noted that the impugned order is dated 13/8/2025. The present Petition has been iled on 4^th December, 2025. Sub-section (1) of Section 107 read with Sub-

¶25

3/3 22.wp.12768.2025.odt

¶26

section (4) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 contemplates that Appeal to be iled within a period of four months.

¶27

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.

¶28

Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶29

It is clariied that this Court has not considered the merits

¶30

and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.

¶31

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]

¶32

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶33

vijaya

¶34

Digitally signed by VIJAYA VIJAYA GOURISHANKAR GOURISHANKAR YADAO YADAO Date: 2026.03.09 10:21:21 +0530

M/S Gajanana Scrap Traders Thr Proprietor Abhijeet Tanaji Powar v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gajanana Scrap Traders Thr Proprietor Abhijeet Tanaji Powar v. the Union of India and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

St. Marry Education Trust Thr His Constituted Attorney Mr. Habib Nadaf vs Sunita Tarar and Others

Sanjay Namdev Badekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Shubhamraje Kailas Satpute vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Other Backward Classes Welfare Dept.

Arbaj Nasir Mujawar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Mahantesh Hanmantrao Kattimani vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatray Rangrao Londhe vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.