Above Ground Level Travco Llp vs Union Of India
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM020071532026
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 7153 OF 2026
M/s Above Ground Level Travco LLP
Ground Floor, 3, Plot No.6,
Sindh Chambers, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 005.
GSTIN : 27ABNFA3722H1ZG
PAN : ABNFA3722H ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Commissioner of State Tax,
th
8 Floor, Vikrikar Bhavan,
Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 010.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Appellate Authority – Appeal – I,
Fort, South Mumbai.
4. The State Tax Officer
Kalbadevi Nodal Division – 1
th
A-4, 9 Floor, GST Bhavan, Old Building,
Mazgaon, Mumbai.
5. Bank of Baroda,
Fort University Branch,
Wakodikar 1/9
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Date:
2026.11.05
11:22:56 +0530
RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
119, Agra Building M.G.Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. ...Respondents
…..
Mr. Nigel Quraishy a/w Mr. Snehil Rai for the Petitioner.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Priyanka Singh a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad & Mr. Y.R.Mishra for the
Respondent No.1.
…..
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
nd
DATE : 2 NOVEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent
of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the
legality and validity of the Notice No. STO/C-858/KALBADEVI-
712/ND-01/GST RECOVERY/DRC-13/B-39, Mumbai dated
11.02.2026 passed by the respondent No.4 under Section 79(1)(c) of
the GST Act, 2017 being ‘Exhibit-A’ directing the Respondent No.5 to
Wakodikar 2/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
pay an amount of Rs.16,25,258/- to the Government on behalf of the
Petitioner and also the impugned Order-In-Appeal No.DCST/GST -
Appeal/E-101/ARN-AD2702250219172/2025-26/B-154 dated
29.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 3 being ‘Exhibit-B’.
3. The facts and circumstances are as under:
In March 2019, the Petitioner received an invoice from M/s. Jet
Set Go Aviation Services Ltd. for Rs.53,17,814/- with IGST of
Rs.8,11,912/-. The accountant of the Petitioner has incorrectly and
inadvertently recorded ITC in GSTR- 3B for March 2019 under CGST
and SGST (Rs.4,05,596/-each) instead of IGST. In September 2019,
the Petitioner rectified the error, by correctly showing ITC under
IGST in GSTR-3B for September, 2019.
On 27.05.2024, a Show Cause Notice was issued by Respondent
No.4 but only on the portal and not by any other effective
communication. On 29.07.2024, an ex-parte Order-in-Original
passed by the Respondent No.4 has been issued against the
petitioner and uploaded on portal and was not served effectively.
Wakodikar 3/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
The Petitioner came to know about this order in or around the
month of February-March, 2025 when the Nodal Officer contacted
the Petitioner on mobile and informed the petitioner regarding the
Amnesty Scheme introduced by the Government and also during
that time informed that about issuance of Show Cause Notice and
Order-in-Original against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner on 07.02.2025 filed an appeal before the
State Commissioner of (Appeals). On 29.12.2025, the said
appeal was rejected on ground of limitation. On 11.02.2026,
the Respondent No.4 issued a notice under Section 79(1)(c) of
the GST Act, 2017 to the Petitioner’s bank for recovery of Rs.
16,25,258/-. This notice was issued without informing the
Petitioner. Hence, the present Petition is filed challenging the
Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2024, Order-in-Original dated
29.07.2024, Order-in-Appeal dated 29.12.2025, and Recovery
Notice dated 11.02.2026.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted
Wakodikar 4/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
that the issuance of Show Cause Notice and passing of Order-
in-Original is in utter disregard to the principles of natural
justice, inasmuch as, the Respondents never informed the
Petitioner about the proceedings. Hence, no opportunity was
given to the Petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned Show
Cause Notice, and Order-in-Original were uploaded on the web
portal, which does not amount to effective communication.
The Petitioner came to know about the proceedings only when
the Nodal officer - the Respondent No. 4 in the month of
February-March 2025 informed by contacting on mobile
number of the Petitioner that Show Cause Notice and Order-in-
Original has been passed against him and since Amnesty
Scheme is going on requested to pay.
It is argued by the Petitioner that the orders are totally
illegal, and further the act of the Respondent No. 4 to direct
the Banker of the Petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.16,25,258/- is arbitrary without notice to the Petitioner and
in violation of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner
Wakodikar 5/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
contended that the matter is covered by the judgment of this
Court in the matter of T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
1
Maharashtra . He submitted that there was no loss of revenue
to the State and that there was a bonafide mistake.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought
allowing the said Petition.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted
that the impugned orders are proper and require no
interference.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
We have perused the documents on record.
5. The contention of the Petitioner is that there was no proper
service and that the only way of communication was that the notice
was displayed/sent on the portal. It is clear from perusing of the
impugned Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original that the
Petitioner was not heard at the relevant time, and as such, the
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175
Wakodikar 6/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
impugned Show Cause Notice, the Order-in-Original, and Order-in-
Appeal are, thus, in gross defiance of principles of natural justice.
6. This Court in the matter of T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors . (supra) has observed in paragraph number 12 as
under:
"12. We are therefore, of the view that no mistake can be
attributed to the Petitioner for not having noticed the Notice
or the Order on the portal. It is clear that all orders and
notices were required to be placed in the "View Notices and
Orders" window/portal. It is also appears to be quite clear
from the perusal of the record that the Petitioner was not
heard. It had no opportunity to reply to the show cause
notice."
7. In fact, this Court in the matter of Abracadabra India and Ors.
2
vs. Union of India and Ors. has also taken the same view.
8. Further, the Madras High Court in the matter of Axiom Gen Nxt
India Private Limited vs. Commercial State Tax Officer, T. Nagar
3
Assessment Circle, Chennai has drawn a distinction between
sufficient and effective service under Section 169 of the GST Act, and
2 WP/2968/2024 dated 16/10/2026
3 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3898
Wakodikar 7/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
has held that when portal-based service is ineffective, the
Department must adopt alternate statutory modes such as RPAD;
failure to do so renders the proceedings unsustainable.
9. The Petitioner, upon realizing its glaring mistake that the
accountant had incorrectly and inadvertently recorded ITC in GSTR-
3B for the month of March 2019 under CGST and SGST instead of
IGST, had rectified the error by correctly showing ITC under IGST in
GSTR-3B for September 2019. The said document is at ‘Exhibit-F’ to
the Petition.
10. This Court in the matter of Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs.
4
Union of India & Ors. has even allowed time-barred correction in the
GSTR-1 as the same was bonafide and there was no loss to the
revenue.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, we are inclined to allow the
Petition. Hence, the following order:
4 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2682
Wakodikar 8/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
6-WPL-7153-2026.doc
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Recovery of Tax Notice bearing No.
STO/C-858/KALBADEVI-712/ND-01/GST RECOVERY/
DRC-13/B-39 Mumbai dated 11.02.2026 at ‘Exhibit-A’ is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2024 issued by
the Respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside.
(iv) The impugned Order-In-Appeal No. DCST/GST
Appeal/E-101/ARNAD2702250219172/2025-26/B-154
dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 3 being
‘Exhibit-B’, the impugned Order-in-Original No. STO/C-
858/KAL-712/Returns of Scrutiny/20-21/DRC-07/2023-
24/B-199 dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Respondent
No. 4 are quashed and set aside.
12. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms and the petition stands
disposed of accordingly.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 9/9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:31:36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)