Bombay High Court · 2025-07-08
JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPT OF REVENUE
- Citation / case number
- WP/15536/2023
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT.
- Respondent
- UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPT OF REVENUE
Judgment text excerpt
904.WP-15536.23-2.DOCX ppn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by PRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.07.08 WRIT PETITION NO. 15536 OF 2023 16:33:55 +0530 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals ) India Pvt. Ltd. ) Plot No.6A, MIDC Taloja Road, ) Taloja, Navi Mumbai, ) Raigad – 410208 ) Through its Authorized Representative ) Mr. Ketan Gala, ) Finance Controller ) ...PETITIONER Versus 1. Union of India ) Through the Ministry of Finance ) Department of Revenue, ) North Block, New Delhi. ) 2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes ) and Customs ) GST Policy Wing, ) Ministry of Finance ) Department of Revenue ) North Block, Central Secretariat ) New Delhi – 110001. ) 3. The Deputy Commissioner ) Division VI, COST & C. Ex. ) Raigad, Commissionerate ) nd 2 Floor, Plot No.1, ) Sector 17, Khandeshwar, ) Navi Mumbai – 410206. ) ...RESPONDENTS ______________________________________________________ Ms. Priyanka Rathi a/w Mr. Prasad Avhad i/by Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for the Petitioner. Page 1 of 12 904.WP-15536.23-2.DOCX Mrs. Neeta Masurkar a/w Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar for the Respondents. ______________________________________________________ CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. RESERVED ON: 1 July 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 8 July 2025 JUDGMENT(Per Jitendra Jain, J.) :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order passed by respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner’s revised TRAN-1 Form dated 28 November 2022 filed under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not revised its excise return for the period pri