Bombay High Court
Vinay Hiroo ThadaniversusDeputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to a fresh hearing on the show‑cause notice and that the challenge to Sections 74 and 93(1) of the CGST Act remains open.
Summary
Vinay Hiroo Thadani filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging tax recovery proceedings initiated against his deceased father under the CGST Act, 2017. He argued that Sections 74 and 93(1) of the Act should not apply to a deceased taxpayer and that the show‑cause notice and subsequent order violated natural justice by not recording reasons or considering his reply. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to appear before the authority, justifying the order. The High Court held that the petitioner must be given a fresh opportunity to be heard on all contentions and that a fresh order should be passed after such hearing, while keeping the constitutional challenge to the statutory provisions open. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on a specified date and ordered the authority to fix a hearing date and pass a fresh order within four weeks, disposing the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether Sections 74 and 93(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are applicable to tax recovery proceedings against a deceased taxpayer.
- Whether the show‑cause notice and order violated the principles of natural justice by not recording reasons or considering the petitioner's reply.
- Whether the petitioner is liable to satisfy the tax dues of his deceased father.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 74, 93(1)
Subjects
- CGST Act
- Section 74
- Section 93
- Input Tax Credit
- Natural Justice
- Deceased Taxpayer
- Writ Petition
- Tax Recovery
- Hearing
Judgment
8 WP 983-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE WRIT PETITION NO. 983 OF 2026
Digitally signed by
LAXMI SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2026.03.06
19:48:34 +0530
Vinay Hiroo Thadani ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of CGST and
Central Excise & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Gopal Mundhra a/w Yash Prakash i/b. Economic Laws Practice for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Subir Kumar a/w Niyati Mankad, Priyanka Singh & Diksha Pandey for
Respondent No.1 to 5.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P. for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 4TH MARCH 2026
P.C.
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature thereof declaring the Impugned Provision,
i.e., Section 93(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017
[Exhibit E) as ultra vires and violative of Constitution of India.
(b) In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to read down
Section 93(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 [Exhibit
E] and declare that the said provision has no application in cases
where the proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Act,
2017 is initiated against the registered person subsequent to his death.
(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a
Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order
or directions and call for records and proceedings of Impugned Order
bearing No. 118/DC/CGST/MW/Dn-III/HIROO / 2024-25 dated
Page 1 of 4
Laxmi
8 WP 983-26.DOC
27.01.2025 [Exhibit A] passed by Respondent No. 1 and Impugned
Order No. AC-349/ Supdt/CGST/MW/Dn-III/R-02/HIROO/2024-
25 dated 30.01.2025 [Exhibit B], No. 348/Supdt/CGST/MW/Dn-
III/ R-02/HIROO / 2024-25 dated 30.01.2025 [Exhibit C], and No.
347/Supdt/CGST/MW/Dn-III/R-02/HIROO/2024-25 dated
30.01.2025 [Exhibit D] passed by Respondent No. 2, and after going
through the legality, validity and proprietary of thereof, be pleased to
set aside the same;
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned
Order bearing No. 118/DC/CGST/MW/Dn-III/HIROO/2024-25
dated 27.01.2025 [Exhibit A] passed by Respondent No. 1 and
Impugned Order No. AC-349/Supdt
/CGST/MW/Dn-III/R-02/HIROO/2024-25 dated 30.01.2025
[Exhibit B]; No. 348 / Supdt/ CGST/MW/Dn-III /
R-02/HIROO/2024-25 dated 30.01.2025 [Exhibit C]; and No.
347 /Supdt/CGST/MW/Dn-III/R-02/HIROO/2024-25 dated
30.01.2025 [Exhibit D] passed by Respondent No. 2.;”
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. It is the Petitioner’s case that he is being confronted with a tax recovery
of his father Mr. Hiroo Jethanand Thadani. The Petitioner’s father passed away on
12th September 2022. It appears from the record that the Petitioner was issued
show cause notice dated 19th April 2024 raising demands qua the Input Tax Credit
(ITC) stated to be illegally utilized by his father. The said show cause notice was
issued after the demise of the Petitioner’s father. There is an order passed on the
said show cause notice. The limited grievance of the Petitioner is referring to the
provisions of Section 74 and Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017 being not
applicable to the recovery in question qua the Petitioner.
4. It is the Petitioner’s contention that he would not be liable to satisfy the
tax dues of his father, as foisted on him by the Respondents. It is also the
Page 2 of 4
Laxmi
8 WP 983-26.DOC
Petitioner’s case that the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice,
as no reasons have been recorded in the impugned order passed on the show cause
notice, although the Petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice
dated 7th May 2024. The Petitioner contends that none of the pleas as urged by the
Petitioner have been taken into consideration in passing the impugned order.
5. On the other hand Mr. Subir Kumar, learned Counsel for the
department contends that as apparent from the impugned order, the Petitioner
despite several notices, did not appear before the authority, hence such contention
as urged on behalf of the Petitioner, of any breach of the principles of natural
justice be not entertained.
6. We have perused the record. Having heard learned Counsel for the
parties, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and more
particularly when a demand, raised against the Petitioner being contended to be of
the Petitioner’s deceased father, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner be granted
another opportunity of a hearing by the Deputy Commissioner, Division-III,
CGST & Central Excise Mumbai West Commissionerate, on all contentions, the
Petitioner would intend to raise. After the Petitioner is heard on all such
contentions, a fresh order be passed on the show cause notice in question. If the
Petitioner requires any documents in relation to the show cause notice, the same be
furnished to the Petitioner on a specific application made to that effect.
7. We accordingly, direct the Petitioner to appear before the said Authority
initially on 13th March 2026 at 11.00 am. Subsequent thereto, a convenient date
Page 3 of 4
Laxmi
8 WP 983-26.DOC
may be fixed by the Authority for a hearing to be granted to the Petitioner and for
a fresh order to be passed in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks
from the date of conclusion of the hearing.
8. All contentions of the parties in regard to the challenge of the
provisions of the said Act are expressly kept open.
9. The Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Laxmi
Checking your session…