Akbarali Anvarali Vasaya Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Summary : The Bombay High Court granted interim protection to Akbarali Anvarali Vasaya against proceedings initiated by Respondent No.5 after the petitioner complained of a parallel GST investigation concerning the same financial year. The petitioner submitted that Respondent No.3 had already initiated an investigation through a notice dated 7 September 2026, based on intelligence received from the State Economic Intelligence Unit, whereas Respondent No.5 subsequently issued summons dated 11 September 2026 and 18 September 2026. Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought time to obtain instructions and opposed interim relief, arguing that only summons had been issued to obtain information and that cooperating with the authority would cause no prejudice to the petitioner. The Court, however, found prima facie substance in the petitioner’s contention that the parallel investigation was barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act. Referring to Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and Anr., the Court directed Respondent No.5 not to act any further in the proceedings initiated by it and required compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines. These observations and directions were interim; the petition was not finally disposed of. An affidavit-in-reply was permitted within four weeks, followed by a rejoinder, if any, within two weeks of its receipt. The matter was adjourned to 8 December 2026.
Cases Discussed
- Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1700; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6092 of 2025, decided on 14 August 2025 (Supreme Court of India) — The High Court referred to this decision while granting interim protection against the alleged parallel investigation and directed Respondent No.5 to comply with the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
Adv. Nirmal Pagaria appeared for the Petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Mr. Ram Ochani, learned Counsel appears for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and seeks time to take instructions.
3. Mr. Ram Ochani, learned Counsel made an attempt to oppose the interim relief while submitting that what has been done is only issuance of summons and some information is called from the Petitioner. He submitted that there should not be a factum of grant of stay, as there is no prejudice caused to the Petitioner in co-operating with the Authority in providing some information.
4. However, we find that the contention of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.5 has initiated parallel investigation and issued summons dated 11th September 2026 and 18th September, 2026 to the Petitioner against which Respondent No.3 has already initiated investigation by issuing prior notice dated 7th September, 2026 on the basis of the intel received from State Economic Intelligence Unit on the same financial year.
5. Prima facie we find substance in the submission of the Petitioner that said parallel investigation initiated by Respondent No.5 is barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate And Anr. 2025 SCC LnLine SC 1700.
6. Respondent No.5 not to act any further with the proceedings initiated by it. At this juncture, we can only observe that Respondent No.5 has to comply with the Guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate And Anr. 2025 SCC LnLine SC 1700.
7. Affidavit-in-Reply is permitted to be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, within a period of two weeks from the receipt of an Affidavit-in-Reply.
8. Stand over to 8th December 2026.
