Bombay High Court

PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE COMMISSIONERS OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-II)

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The orders were beyond the scope of the show‑cause notice and were therefore quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.

Summary

The petitioner, Paramount Healthcare Management Private Limited, challenged both the original order and the appellate order passed by the GST and Central Excise Commissioners, alleging that the orders went beyond the scope of the show‑cause notice. The petitioner contended that it had fully satisfied the demand specified in the show‑cause notice, and therefore any additional demand was unlawful. The respondents argued that the orders were reasoned and therefore not liable to interference. The Court examined whether the adjudicating and appellate authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction by imposing excess demand beyond the notice. Finding that the excess demand required fresh consideration, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh merits‑based hearing. The petition was subsequently disposed of, with directions for the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority on a specified date.

Issues considered

Did the original and appellate orders exceed the jurisdictional limits of the show‑cause notice?
Can the Court interfere with and quash orders that are alleged to be beyond the scope of the notice?

Subjects

GST
show cause notice
adjudicating authority
quashing order
remand
civil procedure
tax demand

Judgment

                                                           41. WP 3601-2025.doc

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

                         WRIT PETITION NO.3601 OF 2025

Paramount Healthcare Management
Private Limited                        …     Petitioner
          Versus
The Commissioners of GST And
Central Excise (Appeals-II) And Ors.   …     Respondents
                                 …..
Mr. Keval Shah a/w Mr. Rohit Pahilwan for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ram Ochani a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondents.
                                 …..

                                  CORAM: M.S. KARNIK &
                                         SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                  DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.

1.        Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.


2.        The order in original as well as the Order in Appeal, are under

challenge.             Mr. Ram Ochani, the learned Counsel for the

Respondents, opposes the Petition, contending that the original order

as well as the Order in Appeal, are reasoned Orders and therefore, no

interference is warranted.


3.        The contention of the Petitioner is that the Order in original


RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                         1/3
                                                         41. WP 3601-2025.doc

has travelled beyond what the show cause notice provided for. It is

submitted that the demand as made by the Department in the show

cause notice in fact has been satisfied by the Petitioner. It is obvious

that if the Order in original is beyond what was contemplated under

the show cause, the same cannot be sustained. Though, Mr. Ochani

made an attempt to submit that Appellate Authority as well as the

Adjudicating Authority have given adequate reasons, as to why the

demand is justified, we find that so far as the excess demand beyond

the show cause notice is concerned, the said aspect needs to be

considered appropriately afresh by the Adjudicating Authority.

Accordingly, the impugned Orders are quashed and set aside and the

matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh

consideration on merits, after taking into consideration the

submission of the Petitioner that the demand as made in the show

cause notice is satisfied.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner

submits that the Petitioner has complied with what was provided in

the show cause notice in view of the Orders passed by this Court.


4.        The Petitioner shall appear before the adjudicating authority on

29th September, 2026 when further schedule of hearing be fixed. The



RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                       2/3
                                                     41. WP 3601-2025.doc

contentions of the Petitioner as well as the Respondents are kept

open and the Petitioners shall not raise any objection about the delay

in adjudication of the show cause notice in view of the passage of

time, in view of the pendency of the proceedings.


5.        The Petition stands disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                       (M.S. KARNIK, J.)




RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                   3/3
               Digitally signed
RAJESH    by RAJESH
          VASANT
VASANT    CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.09.17
               17:26:34 +0530

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.