2026 (3) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 4648 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 961 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5641 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6222 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6867 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6324 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6979 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1917 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 927 OF 2026, WRIT PETITION NO. 1596 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 5003 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 4862 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 6029 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 4487 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 7416 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 6041 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 9417 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 9014 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 10496 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 9225 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 10287 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 10312 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 10417 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 10301 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 10407 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 10410 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 11643 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 11644 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 11645 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 16605 OF 2024, WRIT PETITION NO. 12013 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 29664 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 16665 OF 2024, WRIT PETITION NO. 16076 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO. 13178....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Its Authorized Sig. Sanjay R. Gupta, Sandoz Private Limited, Siemens Ltd., M/s. Panacea Biotec Ltd., Shamala Lahuraj Mali, Bhavna Auto Pureinfra Pvt. Ltd., Versus Union of India & Ors., State of Maharashtra & Ors., Shree Naminath Lifespace LLP & Ors., The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Ors., Union Of India, Thr. Ministry Of Law And Justice Branch Secretariat And Anr., The Union Of India Through The Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue And Ors., Additional Director DGGI Mumbai Zone And Anr., Asst. Commissioner Cgst And Cex Division Iii Belapur & Anr, Joint Commissioner CGST C Ex Anti Evasion & Ors., Mr. P. C. Joshi a/w Mr. Piyush N. Shah a/w Mr. Aditya V. Tayade for the Petitioner. Mr. Prasanth Raju for the Petitioner. Mr. Vevek Ladha a/w Mr. Pulkit Devpura for the Applicant / Petitioner in WPL/42522/2025 and IAL / 1864/2026. Mr. Rohan Kadam a/w. Mr. Ishaan Patkar, Mr, Prakhar Parekh, Ms. Azraa Millwalla, Ms. Arya Gadagkar, Mr. Jai Sanyal, for the Petitioner in WP/2290/2025. Mr. Rohan Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Vidushi Maheshwari, Mr. Mohammed Anajwalla a/w Mr. Prathamesh Chavan a/w Ms. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....25, WPL/36132/2025 WP/4648/2025 WP/961/2026, WPL/11239/2025. Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, Spl. Counsel a/w Ms. Jyoti Chavan Addl. GP, for the State of Maharashtra in WPL/5717/2026, WP/2290/2025, WPL/22147/2025, WPL/34776/2025, WPL/6222/2026, WPL/6867/2026. Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, Spl. Counsel a/w Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for the State of Maharashtra in WP/2580/2025, WP/2221/2025, WP/3557/2025, WPL/26060/2025, WPL/6979/2026. Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, Spl. Counsel a/w Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. G. P. for the State of Maharashtra in WP/2605/2023. Ms. Shruti Vyas a/w. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, for the Respondent In WP/4435/2025. Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, for the Respondent In WP(L)/10301/2021. Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, for the Respondent No. 1, 2 In WP(L)/17911/2024. Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w. Ms. Vaishali Malekar, for the Respondent No. 4 & 5, In WP(L)/28746/2025. Mr. Ram Ochani a/w. Ms. Suman Kumar Das, for the Respondent No. 1 to 5 & 7 In WP(L)/22147/2025. Mr. Subir Kumar a/w Niyati Mankad and Priyanka Singh a/w Niyanta Trivedi a/w Diksha Pandey for the Respondent No. 4 in WPL/36132 / 2025. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for the Respondent No. 1 / UO....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Court held that no tax could be levied under the said provisions, and more particularly, as observed in paragraph 83 of the said decision. 3. In the present proceedings, a common contention is that the legal position as laid down in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry (supra) would be required to be recognized and followed by the department, considering the settled principle of law that a decision of the High Court would become binding on the department. The grievance of the petitioner is that, nonetheless show cause notices are issued to the petitioners and in many cases, the show cause notices have been taken forward and orders are passed on the show cause notices, which have been assailed in the present petitions. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, our attention is also drawn to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court at the Nagpur Bench in the case of M/s. Vidarbha Beverages Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No.861 of 2026, decided on 13 February 2026 and M/s. Aerocom Cushions Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, (Anti Evasion), Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2025, decided on 9 January 2026, wherein, a similar issue has arisen for consideration of the Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that merely because a notice is issued is not a ground for this Court not to follow the decision of the Gujarat High Court which, according to them, is directly of the point. 5. In any event, we defer the hearing in all these matters to 6 February 2026 at 3.00 p.m. subject to overnight part heard matters. 6. In some of the matters in this batch, we have already granted ad interim orders. Accordingly, we direct that until the next date, in all these matters, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners based upon the impugned show cause notices and/or orders if already made. 7. In some of the Petitions, there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the CGST Act. Therefore, we have issued notices to the learned Attorney General. Today, it is pointed out that there are some other Petitions as well where the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the CGST Act have been challenged. In those matters as well, we issue notices to learned Attorney General. 8. The Petitioners, who have challenged the constitutional validity of some of the pro....