K. b. Patrikar Through Its Prop Kakaji Banduji Patrikar Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 12 September 2024 and an order dated 9 April 2025 rejecting a rectification application. The petitioner, engaged in road construction, had been issued a show-cause notice covering a period beyond five years. After responding to the notice, an adverse order was passed. In the writ proceedings, the petitioner argued that the authority failed to grant pre-show cause consultation, passed the order without assigning reasons, and breached natural justice by not considering documents placed on record. The petitioner claimed exemption under Item 13, but the authority examined eligibility under Item 12 instead. Multiple judicial precedents were relied upon to support the arguments, including decisions emphasizing application of mind, requirement of pre-consultation, and the need to consider documents produced.
The respondent-Department countered that the petitioner had an effective alternate remedy in the form of an appeal, and that the petitioner approached the Court only to avoid depositing 7.5% of the assessed liability. It was submitted that the pre-consultation ground had never been raised in the reply to the show-cause notice or in the writ petition, indicating waiver. The Department maintained that the authority considered the material available and that any dissatisfaction with the reasons provided did not amount to breach of natural justice. The respondents also argued that limitation issues raised regarding the notice period could appropriately be adjudicated by the appellate forum.
