Shree Govind Traders (Prop. Bhagwandas Jindal) vs the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and Ors.

“a. that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction of similar nature and quash and set aside the Impugned Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 having a reference no. ZD270923063040M dated 26.09.2023 (Exhibit-D) and the Impugned Rectification Order in Form DRC-08 having a reference no. ZD270625103009L dated 24.06.2025 (ExhibitJ) passed by the Respondents.

¶16

b. that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any Writ, Order or Direction of similar nature to forthwith withdraw the Impugned Show Cause Notice in Form DRC01 having a reference no. ZD270923063040M dated 26.09.2023 (Exhibit-D) and the Impugned Rectification Order in Form DRC-08 having a reference no. ZD270625103009L dated 24.06.2025 (ExhibitJ) passed by the Respondents.

¶17

c. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the Impugned Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 having a reference no. ZD270923063040M dated 26.09.2023 (Exhibit-D) Impugned Rectification Order in Form DRC-08 having a reference no. ZD270625103009L dated 24.06.2025

Page 1 of 6

Laxmi

502 WP 16694-25.DOC

(Exhibit-J and against the recovery of impugned demand by the Respondents; referred in prayer(s) above.”

¶22

The financial period involved in the present Petition pertains to FY 2017–18. In an earlier matter for FY 2018-19, in case of this Petitioner involving similar facts, this Court had passed order dated 22^nd April 2026 in Writ Petition 14121 of 2025, wherein the order under challenge in the said Writ Petition was quashed and set aside and the proceedings stood remanded to Respondent No.1 for de novo consideration and for giving a fresh hearing to the Petitioner. The said order reads thus:

¶23

“ P.C.

¶24

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶25

“a. that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction of similar nature and quash and set aside the Impugned Show Cause Notice having a reference no. ZD2701240703340 dated 30.01.2024 (Exhibit -D) Impugned Rectification Order having a reference no. ZD270325113099G dated 21.03.2025 (Exhibit-J) passed by the Respondents.

¶26

b. that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any Writ, Order or Direction of similar nature to forthwith withdraw the Impugned Show Cause Notice having a reference no. ZD2701240703340 dated 30.01.2024 (Exhibit -D) Impugned Rectification Order having a reference no. ZD270325113099G dated 21.03.2025 (Exhibit-J) passed by the Respondents.

¶27

c. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the Impugned Show Cause Notice having a reference no. ZD2701240703340 dated 30.01.2024 (Exhibit -D) Impugned Rectification Order having a reference no. ZD270325113099G dated 21.03.2025 (Exhibit- J) and against the recovery of impugned demand by the Respondents; referred in prayer(s) above.”

Page 2 of 6

Laxmi

502 WP 16694-25.DOC

The facts lie in a narrow compass:-

¶32

i. The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of Trading in M.S. Scrap.

¶33

ii. On 21^st July 2023, Respondent No. 1 issued a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 for intimation of discrepancies under parameter 106 and parameter 107, amounting to Rs. 1,48,62,491/-. On 21^st August 2023, the Petitioner replied in Form GST ASMT-11, along with supporting documents in response to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, on 6^th September 2023, Respondent No. 1 issued a notice in Form GST DRC-01A and sought to recover the same demand as made by them earlier in Form GST ASMT-10 of Rs. 1,48,62,491/-.

¶34

iii. Respondent No. 1 also issued another show cause notice on 30^th January 2024 in Form GST DRC-01, alleging that the aforesaid demand and corresponding penalty was payable by the Petitioner, without taking into consideration the submissions made by the Petitioner previously.

¶35

iv. On 26^th February 2024, the Petitioner replied in Form GST DRC-06 to the aforesaid show cause notice, along with supporting documents. However, Respondent No. 1 passed the order-in-original dated 5^th March 2024 in Form GST DRC – 07, confirming the demand of Rs. 1,48,62,491/- along with interest and penalty, once again not taking into consideration the submissions of the Petitioner.

¶36

v. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (St) No. 13705 of 2024 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order passed by Respondent No. 1. This Court, by an order dated 22^nd August 2024, quashed and set aside the orders-in-original dated 12^th December 2023 and 5^th March 2024 passed by Respondent No. 1, and the matter was remanded back to Respondent No. 1 for de novo consideration. The order dated 22^nd August 2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (St) No. 13705 of 2024 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶37

“P.C. :

¶38

1 Ms Chavan on instructions states that respondent no.1 will pass a fresh order after giving a personal hearing and, therefore, the order impugned in the petition being order in original dated 12th December 2023 and 5th March 2024 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded for denovo consideration.

¶39

2 Therefore, the following order is passed:

¶40

a) The orders in original dated order in original dated 12th December 2023 and 5th March 2024 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent no.1 for denovo consideration. Consequential orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside.

¶41

b) Respondent no.1 shall give a personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 5 working days in advance.

Page 3 of 6

Laxmi

502 WP 16694-25.DOC

c) Should petitioner wish to file any written submissions to record what transpired during the personal hearing, the same shall be filed within three working days of the conclusion of the personal hearing.

¶46

d) The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of petitioner.

¶47

3 Petition disposed.

¶48

4 We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter.”

¶49

vi. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Petitioner filed additional submissions during the personal hearing held on 18^th February 2025, however, it is the Petitioner’s contention that without considering the aforesaid submissions, Respondent No. 1 once again passed the order dated 21^st March 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “ impugned order ”), confirming the demand of Rs. 1,48,62,491/-, along with interest and penalty.

¶50

vii. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed the present Petition.

¶51

Mr. Keval Shah along with Mr, Rohil Pahilwan appeared for Petitioner, and Ms. Shruti Vyas, Addl.G.P., along with Mr, Aditya R. Deolekar appeared for the Respondents. We have perused the papers and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶52

It is the contention of Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that the impugned order has been passed without dealing/adverting to the submissions made by the Petitioner at the time of the personal hearing, as well as the contentions raised by the Petitioner in its replies dated 21^st August 2023 and 26^th February 2024. He has therefore submitted that the impugned order is a bald and non-speaking order. He further submitted that though the impugned order was passed in remand proceedings pursuant to the directions issued by this Court by its order dated 22^nd August 2024, Respondent No. 1 has once again failed to take into consideration the submissions made by the Petitioner, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. He has therefore submitted that a fresh hearing needs to be accorded to the Petitioner, wherein the Petitioner can once again make submissions in respect of the demand of Rs. 1,48,62,491/- along with interest and penalty, as raised upon the Petitioner.

¶53

Ms. Vyas learned AGP, though has opposed the reliefs as prayed for in the Petition, she has fairly stated that the proceedings can be remanded back and a fresh and reasoned order can passed in the present proceedings.

¶54

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find much substance in the submissions as made on behalf of the Petitioner, inasmuch as on perusal of the impugned order, much to our shock and dismay, Respondent

Page 4 of 6

Laxmi

502 WP 16694-25.DOC

No. 1 has not adverted to any of the submissions made by the Petitioner, though the proceedings were remanded back by this Court by order dated 22^nd August 2024 for de novo proceedings. This approach on the part of the departmental authorities needs to be deprecated, inasmuch as even in the second round of litigation the Petitioner’s submissions have not been considered, and the demand has been raised on the Petitioner, forcing the Petitioner to once again approach this Court.

¶59

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to pass the following order which will meet the ends of justice.

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. Impugned order dated 21^st March 2025 is quashed and set aside.

¶62

ii. Proceedings stand remanded to Respondent No. 1 for de novo consideration, and for a fresh and reasoned order to be passed in accordance with law, and after hearing the parties. The Adjudicating Authority shall complete the determination within a period of three months from today.

¶63

iii. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶64

iv. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.”

¶65

Mr. Keval Shah along with Mr, Rohil Pahilwan appeared for Petitioner,

¶66

and Ms. Shruti Vyas, Addl.G.P., along with Mr, Aditya R. Deolekar appeared for the Respondents. We have perused the papers and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶67

Both learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the proceedings in the present Petition can also be conveniently be disposed of by following the order passed in Writ Petition No. 14121 of 2025 dated 22^nd April 2026 and the proceedings can be remanded to the original/Adjudicating Authority.

¶68

In view of the aforesaid order dated 22^nd April 2026, we are inclined to pass the similar orders which will meet the ends of justice:-

¶69

ORDER

¶70

v. Impugned order dated 24^th June 2025 is quashed and set aside.

Page 5 of 6

Laxmi

502 WP 16694-25.DOC

vi. Proceedings stand remanded to Respondent No. 1 for de novo consideration, and for a fresh and reasoned order to be passed in accordance with law, and after hearing the parties. The Adjudicating Authority shall complete the determination within a period of three months from today.

¶75

vii. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶76

viii. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 6 of 6

Laxmi

Shree Govind Traders (Prop. Bhagwandas Jindal) v. the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Govind Traders (Prop. Bhagwandas Jindal) v. the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kishor Dagdu Shirke vs State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary Housing Department

Terralight Solar Energy Charanka Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer 14(3) (1) and Anr.

Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Limited vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Vina Ahuja vs the Commissioner of Customs

Anthony Joseph Fernandes vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority (Sra)

Haider Ali Khan vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Government Pleader