Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Aashish Behram Kasad vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Gst Division ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 14367 Bom

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14367 Bom
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2024

Bombay High Court

Aashish Behram Kasad vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Gst Division ... on 7 May, 2024

Author: B. P. Colabawalla

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla

   2024:BHC-OS:7488-DB


                                                                                 8 wpl 9378-24.doc



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

LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE                                  WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9378 OF 2024
Digitally signed
by LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2024.05.08
16:19:01 +0530     Aashish B. Kasad                                                 .. Petitioner

                            Versus

                   The Deputy Commissioner of GST
                   (Division VI) & Anr.                                             .. Respondents

                        Adv. Nishant Thakkar a/w Jasmin Amabadwala i/b. Lumiere Law
                        Partners for the Petitioner.

                        Adv. Y. R. Mishra a/w S. R. Ketkar for Respondent No.1.

                                              CORAM:       B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                           SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
                                              DATE:        MAY 07, 2024

                   P. C.



1. The above Writ Petition is filed inter-alia challenging the

impugned show cause notice dated 30th December, 2020 [Exhibit-H to

the Petition] and the impugned order dated 11 th January, 2024

[Exihibit-T to the Petition].

2. To put it in a nutshell, the issue involved in the present

Petition is that the 1st Respondent has brought to tax remuneration

MAY 07, 2024 Laxmi

8 wpl 9378-24.doc

earned by the Petitioner in her capacity as a partner of Ernst and Young

LLP as service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. According to the

Petitioner, the remuneration paid to the partner is not amenable to

service tax at all, and hence, a challenge to the show cause notice as well

as the impugned order referred to by us earlier.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner as well as the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2. We find that the issue raised in the present Petition is

squarely covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case

of Amrish Rameshchandra Shah Vs. Union of India & others. [Writ

Petition No. 387 of 2021 decided on 8 th March, 2021] as well as in the

case of Fali Jehangir Hodiwalla Vs. The Union of India and others [Writ

Petition No. 3437 of 2021 decided on 28 th March, 2022]. Incidentally,

the Writ Petitions filed by these individuals, namely, Amrish

Rameshchandra Shah and Fali Jehangir Hodiwalla were also partners of

Ernst and Young LLP. In the case of Amrish Rameshchandra Shah

(supra), a similar show cause notice was issued and he had filed Writ

Petition No. 387 of 2021. The Division Bench of this Court, on 8 th

March, 2021, quashed show cause notice with a clarification that the

Respondent would be at liberty to pursue with the verification as to the

MAY 07, 2024 Laxmi

8 wpl 9378-24.doc

income of the Petitioner received from other resources and may issue

fresh show cause notice in accordance with law if the circumstances so

warrant. The exact same view was also taken in the case of Fali Jehangir

Hodiwalla (supra). We see no reason to take a different view in the

present matter.

4. In light of the above, we pass the following order:

a) We quash and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated

30th December, 2020 [Exhibit-H to the Petition] and the

impugned order dated 11th January, 2024 [Exihibit-T to the

Petition]. We clarify that the Respondent would be at liberty to

pursue the verification as to income of the Petitioner received

from other resources and may issue a fresh show cause notice in

accordance with law if the circumstances so warrant.

b) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has fairly stated

that if a fresh show cause notice is issued, the Petitioner would

not raise the question of limitation. The said statement is duly

accepted.

MAY 07, 2024 Laxmi

8 wpl 9378-24.doc

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to

costs.

6. Before parting, we would like to bring to the attention of

the 1st Respondent, who has issued the show cause notice and passed the

impugned order, that when a binding Judgment of this Court is brought

to its notice, he is bound to the same. In the present case, he has failed

to follow the binding decisions of this Court though they were brought

to his notice. We do not propose to take any action against him as this is

the first infraction. However, if this continues in the future, we will not

hesitate to take appropriate action.

7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by

fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN,J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

MAY 07, 2024 Laxmi

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter