[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Best Agrolife Limited, Akola vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
912.wp.2548.26 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2548 of 2026
Best Agrolife Limited
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mumbai &
others
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. Mohit Rawal & Mr A.N. Agrawal,
Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 to 4.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE : 27th MARCH, 2026.
The challenge is to the notice dated 25/03/2025 issued by
respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to make payment of tax and
interest within seven days with a rider that if the same is not paid within
time, the proceedings shall be initiated to recover the outstanding dues as
per the provisions of Section 79 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax
(MGST) Act, 2017.
02. The petitioner responded to the said notice not by making
payment, but by issuing a communication dated 11/04/2025 (through
email), the relevant portion of which reads as under:
i. We issued credit notes in terms of section 34 of the CGST Act
2017 (read with rule 53 of the CGST Rules 2017) for claiming
tax adjustment in r/o the goods supplied which were returned
by the recipients and the rate difference. This had been done
to treat the goods return through credit note rather than
treating it as a new supply in which case the recipient
returning the goods shall issue tax invoice. We duly declared
the details of such credit notes through e-invoice portal for the
month during which such credit notes have been issued and
the outward tax liability was adjusted in r/o the sales effected
during the previous months/fiscal. This led to reduction in the
output tax liability at our end which was ultimately
discharged by us. On the other hand, reporting of the credit
notes on the portal reduced the ITC availability to this extent
at the end of the respective buyers/consignees as provided
under the GST provisions.
ii. For the sake of your ready reference, we duly furnished the "Tax
Liability Report' (generated through GSTN Portal) for the period
April'22 to February'25 Incorporating the remarks against each of the
month reflecting 'negative sales due to above reasons. The perusal of
these data made it clear that the reduction in the tax liability had not
led to any short payment of tax at our end. We also furnished the
"NEGATIVE LIABILITY STATEMENT", generated through common
portal, for 01/09/2024 to 27/03/2025. By this statement, it was
evident that in case there is any negative liability in a tax period and
no amount is payable during that tax period by the taxpayer, then
such negative liability is maintained by the GST Portal in Negative
Liability Statement. The Balance, if any, lying in the Negative Liability
Statement, will automatically be adjusted against the liability of
subsequent tax period(s). From September 2024 onwards, taxpayers
are allowed to report negative liabilities in Table No. 3 of GSTR-38.
The introduction of this provision is aimed at streamlining the
reconciliation process vide Notification No. 12/2024 (10 July 2024).
Had this reporting facility be available for prior period, there would
have no confusion in this regard."
03. As could be seen, according to the petitioner, the entire
information is available on the GST Portal maintained by the respondents
and, therefore, necessary adjustments ought to have been made.
04. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not
consider the said communication/representation. The learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner made further
representations in the months of May 2025 and October 2025, and again
thereafter in the year 2025, but to no avail.
05. The respondents have, instead of considering the representation,
issued multiple notices under Section 79 of the Act for recovery of money.
The first such notice was issued to ICICI Bank on 18/07/2025. Subsequent
notices were issued to the State Bank of India, Akola Branch, and the State
Bank of India, New Delhi Branch, dated 26/02/2026 and 09/03/2026,
respectively. These notices have been challenged by the petitioner.
06. The petitioner is seeking interim relief. However, considering the
fact that by notice issued under Rule 142b on 25/03/2025, the Revenue
informed the petitioner that, in the event of non-payment of the amount,
appropriate proceedings under Section 79 of the Act would be initiated and
further that the petitioner made a communication dated 11/04/2025,
which, according to the petitioner, was not considered by the Revenue, the
petitioner should have approached this Court in April or May 2025. The
unjustified delay would require rejection of the prayer for interim relief and
thus it is accordingly rejected.
07. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 10th April, 2026.
08. The learned A.G.P. waives service of notice on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
09. We would like to know from the respondents as to why was the
petitioner's representation not considered and secondly why action not
taken immediately after the lapse of seven days as mentioned in the notice.
(Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/03/2026 18:21:09
