The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Government Revenue Dept

Judgment text excerpt

Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT VILAS RANE VILAS Date: 418-WPL-4698-26.DOC RANE 2026.02.26 21:44:41 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4698 OF 2026 The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Government Revenue Dept & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Prasad Paranjape (Through V.C.) a/w. Bhavya Varma a/w. Mr. Kevin Gogri, i/b. Lumiere Law Partners, for Petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for Respondent- State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 20 FEBRUARY 2026 Oral Judgment: (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting issue as to whether the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), in its constitution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(CGST Act), has jurisdiction to pass interim orders. 2. An Order-in-Original was passed under the provisions of the CGST Act against the petitioner on 18th December 2023 whereunder a tax liability stands confirmed against the petitioner. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. By an Order dated 12th June 2024, the Appellate Authority rejected the Petitioner’s Appeal by passing an Order-in-Appeal. Page 1 of 13 Mane 418-WPL-4698-26.DOC 3. The Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal before the GST Tribunal against the said Order-in-Appeal on 5th February 2026. In the interregnum, the Petitioner received intimations by e-mails dated 3rd February 2026 and 6th February 2026 raising a demand. Upon receipt of such intimations, the Petitioner informed Respondent No. 3 that the demand amount has been deposited and adjusted through Form GST DRC-03A, and that an App