Abracadabra India vs Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM020361842023
2026:BHC-OS:22602-DB
40-WP-2968-2024 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2968 OF 2024
Abracadabra India and Ors. .....Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Swagata for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, A.G.P, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondent
Nos.2 & 3.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for the Respondent
No.1.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
DATE : 16 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking several
reliefs. At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that he does not press prayer clauses (a) and (b)
of the petition inasmuch as, the said prayers are now taken care of by
the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner,
however, presses prayer clause (c).
Wakodikar
1/6
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Date: 2026.10.16
17:59:35 +0530
RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 18:30:54
40-WP-2968-2024 (J).doc
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.5 has
arbitrarily demanded service tax arrears allegedly payable by the
petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is challenging the validity of
the proceedings instituted against the petitioner, resulting in the
st
order dated 31 March 2023 issued by the respondent No.5 which
alleges that an amount of Rs.62,42,948/- is payable by the petitioner
as tax interest and penalty. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
stated that the impugned order is bad in law, it is a result of non-
application of mind, the notice which was issued to the petitioner
was not duly received by the petitioner. The same were posted in the
Additional Notices and Orders Section in the User Services tab, in the
detailed dropdown dashboard of the GST portal. It is the contention
th
of the petitioner that on 17 November, 2023, upon being informed
of SGST proceedings by the respondent No.5 via phone call,
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 requested their Chartered Accountant to
investigate about the said proceedings. The Chartered Accountant
erroneously stated that no Show-cause Notices were found on the
GST portal. It is the contention of the petitioner that they, however,
later on, through independent scrutiny by the petitioners’ legal
Counsel discovered that notices were indeed issued, however they
Wakodikar
2/6
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 18:30:54
40-WP-2968-2024 (J).doc
were not visible in the Order and Notices Section on the homepage,
but in the Additional Orders and Notices Section in the Services Tab.
They contended that on account of the aforesaid reason, they
remained unaware of the notices.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon
the Judgment of this Court in the matter of T.S.Lines India Pvt.Ltd.
1
V.s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. to buttress his submissions.
4. The learned Counsel appearing of the Revenue Department has
contested the contention of the petitioner. He stated that the
petitioners were duly served. He invited our attention to the
impugned notices, the order as well as to the affidavit-in-reply filed
by the Revenue Department.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone
through the documents on record.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the notices, admittedly were
not served upon the petitioner. The notices were not posted on the
homepage of the GST portal of petitioners, but, they were sent in the
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175
Wakodikar
3/6
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 18:30:54
40-WP-2968-2024 (J).doc
Additional Notices & Orders Section in the User Service Tab. We
have gone through the Judgment in the case of T.S.Lines India Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) , wherein, this Court has observed in para 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. We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench of this
Court. In the present case also the notices were not placed in the
view Notices and Orders portal. The petitioner was not heard and
had no opportunity to present their case.
8. In these circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the
impugned Judgment and Order. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i)Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2024 is allowed in terms
of prayer clause (c), which reads thus :
Wakodikar
4/6
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 18:30:54
40-WP-2968-2024 (J).doc
“(c) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any
other appropriate order or direction in the
nature thereof calling for the records and
proceedings emanating from the documents
titled ASMT 10 (dated January 25, 2022
and February 24, 2022); DRC 01A (dated
May 4, 2022 and May 12, 2022); Show
Cause Notice and Form DRC 01A dated
August 3, 2022 (along with the attachment
to DRC01 dated July 19, 2022); and
Impugned Order and Form DRC 07 dated
March 31, 2023 (and the Summary of
Order dated March 31, 2023; and the letter
dated November 17, 2023 to HDFC Bank
under Section 79 of the CGST Act. and after
perusing the same, the Hon'ble Court be
pleased to quash the Impugned Order and
all the documents, directions and
proceedings thereunder; and pending the
proceedings hereunder, the Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to grant a stay on any steps
that may be taken by the Respondents in
pursuance of the proceedings mentioned in
hereinabove (including but not limited to
the Impugned Order)”
(ii) The question of limitation in respect of Show-
cause notice is kept open, to be decided by the
respondent No.5.
(iii) Both the parties to appear before the
th
respondent No.5 on 27 October, 2026 at 11.00 a.m.
Wakodikar
5/6
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 18:30:54
40-WP-2968-2024 (J).doc
(iv) The petitioner is at liberty to file reply, if
required.
(v) After the pleadings are completed, the
respondent No.5 to pass appropriate orders within a
period of four weeks thereafter.
(vi) It is made clear that, the parties shall co-
operate for expeditious hearing of the proceedings and
shall not take unnecessary adjournment.
(vii) The petition is disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar
6/6
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 18:30:54
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)