[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mediaedge Cia India Private Limited vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 20 February, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:5109-DB 407.WP.4634.2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4634 OF 2024
Mediaedge CIA India Private Limited Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Rohan Shah, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Raashree Lohia, Mr.Mohammed
Anajwalla i/by Khaitan & Co. for Petitioner.
Mr.J.B.Mishra with Mr.Rupesh Dubey, Mr.Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent no.1.
Ms.PrachiTatake (V.C), Additional Govt.Pleader for State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 20th January 2026
P.C.
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a
Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 calling for the records
pertaining to the Petitioners' case and after going into the validity and
legality thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the Rectification Order
bearing reference no. ZD270724025317D dated 10.07.2024 and file no.
DC (E-615/509)/LTU-1/GST Audit/DRC-08/MEDIAEDGE CIA INDIA
PVT LTD/2018-19/2024-25/B- 581 Mumbai, dated 09.07.2024 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (MUM-LTU-509), LTU-I,
Mazgaon, Mumbai, Maharashtra (Exhibit B) being bad in law, void ab initio,
and, ultra vires the scheme of adjudication contained under Section 73 of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 73 of the
Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the
Digitally signed
MANISH by MANISH Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017;
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.02.25
11:03:02 +0530
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ
in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article
Page 1 of 7
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:58:01 :::
407.WP.4634.2024.DOC
226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 calling for the records pertaining to
the Petitioners' case and after going into the validity and legality thereof be
pleased to quash and set aside the Order-in-Original bearing reference no.
ZD270424038603H and file no. No. DC (*-615/509)/LTU-1/GST
Audit/DRC-07/ MEDIAEDGE CIA INDIA PVT LTD/2018-19/2024-
25/B- 477 Mumbai, dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of State Tax (MUM-LTU-509), LTU-I, Mazgaon, Mumbai, Maharashtra
(Exhibit- C) being bad in law, void ab initio, and, ultra vires the scheme of
adjudication contained under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 73 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017;
(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the
Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 and Notification
No. 56/2023-State Tax, No. MGST-1524/C.R.6 /Taxation-1, dated
16.01.2024 (Exhibit-A) ultra vires Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India, 1950;
(d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the
Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 and Notification
No. 56/2023-State Tax, No. MGST-1524/C.R.6 /Taxation-1, dated
16.01.2024 (Exhibit-A) ultra vires Section 168A of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 168A of the Maharashtra Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017;
(e) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ
in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ordering and
directing the Respondents themselves, their officers and subordinates to
forthwith withdraw and/or rescind the Impugned orders dated
09/10.07.2024 (Exhibit-B) and 19.04.2024 (Exhibit- C);
(f) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the
Respondents by themselves, their office subordinates, servants and agents be
restrained from in any manner acting on, or, in consequence of, the
Impugned orders dated 09/10.07.2024 (Exhibit-B) and 19.04.2024
(Exhibit- C) passed by the Respondent No. 3;
(g) grant ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (d) above; and
(h) for costs of this Petition;
(i) grant such further and other reliefs or directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts of the present case."
2. Thus, the primary challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the
rectification order dated 9th/10th July 2024 whereby the Order-in-Original dated
19th April 2024 (collectively referred to as the "impugned order") has been partially
Page 2 of 7
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:58:01 :::
407.WP.4634.2024.DOC
upheld and both the impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that
they are completely non-speaking orders without considering the submissions
made by the Petitioners resulting in the issuance of demand notices.
3. Briefly the facts are as follows: -
(i) The Petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 and is inter alia engaged in providing media planning and placement
services to advertisers. The Petitioners have clients based in India and Overseas;
(ii) On 19th December 2023, parallel to an investigation conducted by
the State Goods and Services Tax (GST) Officers, the jurisdictional State GST
Officers initiated audit proceedings and issued show cause notice basis final audit
reports. The Petitioner filed its reply dated 18th January 2024 to the Audit Show
Cause Notice highlighting that the subject matter in the show cause notice was
being investigated by the State GST Officers parallely. On 24 th January 2024, the
investigation wing issued show cause notice, proposing to levy GST on the subject
matters overlapping audit show cause notices. Pursuant thereto the impugned
Order-in-Original dated 19th April 2024 was passed by Respondent No.3. Further
an Order-in-Original dated 30th April 2024 was passed by the Assistant
Commissioner of State Tax;
(iii) On 31st May 2024, the Petitioner filed rectification application
inasmuch as the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19 th April 2024 suffered from
an error apparent on record i.e. that the demand was confirmed on the same subject
matter twice and hence rectification of the impugned order dated 19 th April 2024
was sought;
Page 3 of 7
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:58:01 :::
407.WP.4634.2024.DOC
(iv) On the aforesaid Rectification Application dated 31 st May 2024, the
impugned order dated 9th/10th July 2024 was passed whereby the order dated 19 th
April 2024 was partially upheld;
(v) These two impugned orders as stated aforesaid are the subject matter
of challenge in the present petition.
4. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rohan Shah along with Ms.
Rajashree Lohia and Mr. Mohammed Anajwalla for the Petitioners. Also, Mr. J. B.
Mishra along with Mr. Rupesh Dubey and Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent No.1
and Ms. Prachi Tatake for State of Maharashtra through Video Conference (V.C.).
With the assistance of the learned counsels, we have perused the records and the
impugned orders, and we proceed to decide this petition.
5. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rohan Shah on behalf of the Petitioner has
vehemently contended that both the impugned orders i.e. 19 th April 2024 and
9th/10th July 2024 are non-speaking orders and have been passed without
considering the submissions made by the Petitioner. It is further his contention that
the impugned orders nowhere record any reason as to why parallel proceedings are
being maintained on the show-cause notices issued and merely confirmed the
demand on the ground that the required documents and information have not
been produced. It is further his submission that the impugned orders have not
taken into consideration the detailed submissions made by the Petitioner on the
merits of the matter and have been passed on mere assumptions and presumptions
without dealing with every contention as raised by the Petitioner. Learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Shah also contended that recovery proceedings under Section 79(1)
Page 4 of 7
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:58:01 :::
407.WP.4634.2024.DOC
of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) have been initiated in
pursuance of the impugned orders. He has further pointed out that, amongst the
various issues which were subject matter of the show cause notices, the only finding
in the impugned order dated 19 th April 2024 passed by Respondent No.3 on all
the aforesaid issues is summated by way of the following paragraph :
"5.10. Given the above, we humbly request your good office to drop
the observation raised and no further proceeding should be initiated
in this matter.
Discussion:-
Taxpayer has submitted reply in Form GST DRC-06 on dt.
18.01.2024 on common portal. This office has gone through the
submission, taxpayer could not produce relevant documents/
supporting, hence lability remains the same.
This office has gone through the detail reply which is submitted by
the taxpayer.
The facts discussed in this case and the facts in your case are different
hence the reply cannot be accepted as per the provisions of the Goods
and Services Tas Act, 2017 in this regard
In View of this Lability is confirmed and taxpayer is asked to
discharge the Lability along with Interest under Section 50(1) and
penalty U sec 73(9)."
6. He has further submitted that, even the order of rectification which is
impugned, passed by Respondent 3, has also been mechanically passed and has
partially upheld the order dated 19 th April 2024 without giving any independent
finding on the issues raised for rectification by the Petitioner. He therefore submits
that both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside inasmuch as they both
are perverse and violative of principles of natural justice and have been passed
without considering the submissions/replies submitted by the Petitioner.
Page 5 of 7
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:58:01 :::
407.WP.4634.2024.DOC
7. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent has supported the orders
passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and submitted that the Petitioner has an alternative
remedy of preferring an appeal before the appellate authority for the impugned
orders.
8. On hearing the rival contentions and on perusing the impugned orders, we
find much substance in the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner that the
impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner without adverting to
the submissions as made by the Petitioner. In fact the impugned orders have not
given any finding on the issues raised and have only given a bald finding that the
office has gone through the submission and on account of the taxpayers inability to
produce relevant documents, the liability is confirmed and the taxpayer is to
discharge the liability along with interest Section 50(1) and consequent 70(9) of
the CGST Act. This to our mind is a complete violation of principles of natural
justice and such mechanical orders passed by the Respondents raising consequent
demands on the Petitioner cause grave prejudice and hardship to the Petitioner. In
our view therefore, this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and we deem it appropriate to pass the following orders
which will meet the ends of justice.
ORDER
(i) Impugned orders dated 19th April 2024 bearing reference no.
ZD270424038603H passed by Respondent No. 3 and rectification order bearing
reference no. ZD270724025317D dated 9th/10th July 2024 passed by Respondent
No. 3 are hereby quashed and set aside;
M.S.Thatte
407.WP.4634.2024.DOC
(ii) Respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice to the Petitioners and after
granting a personal hearing to the Petitioner pass a detailed/reasoned speaking
order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month
from the date this order is made available to the Respondents by the Petitioner.
(iii) No coercive action to be initiated against the Petitioner till the passing of the
fresh orders and all notices issued in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 19 th
April 2024 and 9th/10th July 2024 are stayed.
(iv) Petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
M.S.Thatte
