Case Law Details
Harsh Jitendra Kumar Shah Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
The Managing Director of a company filed a writ petition in his individual capacity challenging a show cause notice dated 16 May 2025 and an Order-in-Original dated 15 December 2025. The petition raised three principal grounds. First, relying on an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court, it was contended that Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not apply to an individual director. Second, it was argued that Section 122(1A), introduced with effect from 1 January 2021, cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions that occurred before its insertion. Third, the petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice at the relevant time, rendering the notice invalid.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar issues are pending before the Bombay High Court in other writ petitions where interim protection has already been granted. Counsel for the respondents sought three weeks’ time to obtain instructions and file a reply. The Court directed that the matter be listed on 14 July 2026. As an ad-interim measure, the Court ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner regarding the penalty until further orders.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. In this Writ Petition, the Managing Director of the Company in question has approached this Court, in its individual capacity, assailing the impugned show cause notice dated 16th May, 2025 and the Order-in-Original dated 15th December, 2025, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
Firstly, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs. Union of India‘, Section 122 (1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (” CGST Act”) would have no application on an individual like the Petitioner, who is a Director of the Company;
Secondly, the amendments to the GST Act of 2017, inserting Section 122 (1A), having been carried out with effect from 1′ January, 2021, the said provision would have any retrospective application to the transactions which had taken place prior to that date; and
Thirdly, the adjudicating authority did not have the authority to issue the show cause notice at the relevant point of time, as a result of which, the show cause notice itself is bad for want of jurisdiction.
2. Ishaan Patkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out that the issues involved in this Writ Petition is also involved in similar Writ Petitions pending before this Court wherein interim order of protection is operative.
3. Jitendra Mishra, learned standing Counsel for the Respondents, seeks three weeks’ time to obtain instruction and file reply.
4. List the matter again on 14th July, 2026.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as an ad-interim measure, it is provided that no coercive action shall be initiated against the Petitioner, pertaining to the penalty in question, until further order.
Notes:-
1 2024(3) TMI 1277
Author Bio
