ABHIRAM AYODHYANATH SWAMIversusUNION OF INDIA, DEPT. OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:9801-DB

                                                                         24-WP-10314-2025.doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 10314 OF 2025


               Abhiram Ayodhyanath Swami                                   ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               Union Of India, Dept. Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance ...Respondents
               And Others

                                               ——————
               Mr. Kastur Patil (through VC), for the Petitioner.
               Mr. R.S.Pawar, AGP for the Respondent-State.
               Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar, snr. Counsel, for the Respondent No. 1-UOI.
                                               ——————
                                                CORAM :         SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                                NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                DATE        :   OCTOBER 08, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the challenge is to the show cause notice

               dated 14th January, 2025 issued by the Respondent calling upon the

               Petitioner to show cause, as to why the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”)

               should not be imposed on the lease transfer agreement between the

               Petitioner and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

               (“MIDC”).

               2.        Learned counsel for the Petitioner would rely on the decision of

               the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of



               Arya Chavan                         1 of 4
                                                        24-WP-10314-2025.doc


Aerocom Cushions Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-

Evasion), CGST & CX, Nagpur-1 And Another 1, decided on 9th January,

2026. He would submit that in that case the challenge was to the show

cause notice on the ground of concealment of transaction as regards

the leasehold rights in the plot belonging to MIDC, which is also the

subject matter of the present show cause notice. He submits that the

Hon'ble Court has held that the transaction would not be subject to levy

of GST in terms of Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (“CGST

Act”). He submits that Special Leave Petition against the said judgment

is dismissed and considering the position being settled by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the show cause notice is required to be quashed and set

aside.

3.       Learned AGP would submit that the Petition is premature, as it is

only a show cause notice which has been issued and no order has been

passed. He would however fairly concede that by the judgment in the

case of Aerocom Cushions Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner

(Anti-Evasion), CGST & CX, Nagpur-1 And Another (supra), this Court

has held that such transaction will not be subject to levy of GST.

4.       We find from the decision in the case of Aerocom Cushions

Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), CGST & CX,

1    2026:BHC-NAG:348-DB


Arya Chavan                       2 of 4
                                                                 24-WP-10314-2025.doc


Nagpur-1 And Another (supra), that the Hon'ble Division Bench has

concurred with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vidarbha vs Smt. Godavari Devi Saraf 2,

which is binding on the Tribunal in the State of Bombay and it

subscribed to the said view that the assignment by sale and transfer of

the leasehold rights of the plot of land by MIDC to the lessee in favor of

third-party         assignment       for      a     consideration,        shall      be

assignment/sale/transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property,

by the lessee assignment in favor of third party, and in such

circumstances, the transaction would not be subject to levy of GST in

terms of CGST Act.

5.       There is no distinguishing feature pointed out to this Court and

the show cause notice would indicate that the same called upon the

Petitioner to show cause against the levy of GST on identical

transaction. The decision would therefore squarely apply to the facts of

the present case. Considering the settled position in law, the show

cause notice could not have been issued by the authorities.

6.       Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)

which reads as under :

       “(a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or certiorari or any

2    (1978) 113 ITR 589


Arya Chavan                             3 of 4
                                                                24-WP-10314-2025.doc


      other appropriate order, direction or writ calling for the records and
      proceedings of the Show Cause Notice dated January 14, 2025, being Exhibit
      C hereto, and after going through the legality, validity, correctness and
      propriety of the said Show Cause Notice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
      quash and set aside the said Show Cause Notice;”

7.      Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand

disposed of.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                         [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Arya Chavan                           4 of 4