2025(07)LCX0204

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation

Versus

The Assistant Commissioner CGST and C.Ex

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 616 OF 2025 decided on 15-07-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 616 OF 2025

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation                                           …Petitioner

                Versus

The Assistant Commissioner CGST
and C.Ex Division Mumbai
East Commissionerate.                                           …Respondent

Mr Nand Kishore i/b SL Partners, for Petitioner.
Mr Satyaprakash Sharma with Ms. Megha Bajoria, for
Respondents.

CORAM:    M.S. Sonak &
                         Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED:   15 July 2025

ORAL ORDER (Per M.S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this Petition is to the show cause notice dated 27 November 2024. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is not a case of any suppression and therefore, no notice could have been issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Without prejudice, the learned Counsel submits that the notice under Section 73 could have been issued.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on account of the issue of a notice under Section 74, the Petitioner is being deprived of the benefits under Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017. He relies on M/s. Agni Estate Foundations Private Ltd Vs. The State Tax Officer, Group-II  to submit that in similar circumstances, the Special Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue, based on the written instructions, conceded that no notice should have been issued under Section 74 and sought leave to rectify the same by issuing a Section 73 notice.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the same course could be followed in the present matter so that the Petitioner could avail of the benefits under Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in this case, the Petitioner had voluntarily reversed the input tax credit.

5. He therefore submits that the facts in the present case are identical to the case in the M/s. Agni Estate Foundations Private Ltd (supra) and therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the said case would apply to the case of the Petitioners.

6. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submits that the show cause notice contains detailed allegations regarding suppression. He submits that if the Petitioners are confident that there is no suppression, then it is for them to show cause and have the notice discharged. However, he submitted that this is not a fit case to bypass the normal procedure of responding to a show cause and insisting upon this Court undertake a factual evaluation of the record and interfere with the show cause notice.

7. Mr. Sharma submitted that from the decision in M/s. Agni Estate Foundations Private Ltd (supra), it is not possible to ascertain whether the facts in the said case were similar to those in the present case. In any event, the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court is squarely based on a concession and therefore, the same would not have any precedential or persuasive value insofar as this Court is concerned.

8. For the above reasons, Mr. Sharma submits that this Petition may be dismissed by relegating the Petitioner as required by the impugned show cause notice.

9. We have considered the rival contentions and upon due appreciation of the contentions raised, we are satisfied that this is not a case where we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and interfere with the show cause notice either by quashing and setting it aside or by directing the Respondents to convert the same into a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.

10. Upon reviewing the show cause notice, we cannot conclude that there are no allegations of suppression. Whether such allegations are correct or not is a matter that will have to be examined by the authority which has issued the show cause notice. At this stage, it is premature for this Court to enter the factual thicket and conclude that there was no basis for alleging suppression.

11. Though the Petitioner contends that the facts in the present case are similar to those in the case of M/s. Agni Estate Foundations Private Ltd (supra), based on the common order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court produced before us, we again cannot conclude on the identity of the facts. Besides, Mr. Sharma is justified in arguing that the common order issued by the Hon’ble Madras High Court was based on a concession made, and therefore, it cannot be cited as having any precedential or persuasive value.

12. In any event, all these contentions can always be raised by the Petitioner in response to their impugned show cause notice. If such contentions are indeed raised, the authority issuing the show cause notice will have to consider the same and decide the matter one way or the other. However, considering the limited scope of interference with show cause notices and the availability of alternate remedies to the Petitioner, we are not convinced that we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in this matter.

13. Therefore, by leaving all contentions of the parties open, we decline to entertain this Petition. However, we direct the Respondents to dispose of the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 30 September 2025, after giving the Petitioner full opportunity and an oral hearing.

14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that no reply was filed to the show cause notice since this Petition was filed. He states that, if permitted, the Petitioner would file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from today. Since the Petitioner was bona fide pursuing this Petition and had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court referred to above, we permit the Petitioner to file a reply within two weeks from today. If such a reply is filed, it should be considered by the authority that issued the show cause notice.

15. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any costs order.

16. All concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of this order.