Ramnaresh Kamalaprasad Vishwakarma v. The Union Of India Through The Revenue Secretary

2025:BHC-AS:26139-DB Sayyed 15-WP.3806.2025.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3806 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO.3806 OF 2025 Ramnaresh Kamalaprasad Vishwakarma Ramnaresh Kamalaprasad Vishwakarma Proprietor of M/s. Galaxy Metal Recyclers Proprietor of M/s. Galaxy Metal Recyclers ...

...Petitioner

Petitioner

Versus

Versus

The Union of India & Anr.

The Union of India & Anr.

...

...Respondents

Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Nirmal Pagaria for the Petitioner.

Mr. Nirmal Pagaria for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w Mr. S. D. Deshpande for the Respondents. Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w Mr. S. D. Deshpande for the Respondents. _____________________________________________________ CORAM :

M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 30 June 2025 PC.:- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) 1.

This Petition challenges communication dated 24 January This Petition challenges communication dated 24 January 2025, whereby the Petitioner's ITC amounting to Rs.34,62,323/- has 2025, whereby the Petitioner's ITC amounting to Rs.34,62,323/- has been blocked.

been blocked.

2.

Mr.

Mr. Pagaria Pagaria, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the , learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the procedure adopted for blocking the ITC has not been followed and, procedure adopted for blocking the ITC has not been followed and, therefore, the impugned communication is required to be quashed and therefore, the impugned communication is required to be quashed and set aside.

set aside.

3.

Mr.

Mr. Kantharia Kantharia, learned counsel for the Respondents submits , learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner, inspite of service of various summons has neither that the Petitioner, inspite of service of various summons has neither filed any reply nor appeared before the authorities and, therefore, this filed any reply nor appeared before the authorities and, therefore, this Court should not entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Court should not entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Constitution of India.

4.

After having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the After having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents, there is no dispute that the Petitioner has been avoiding Respondents, there is no dispute that the Petitioner has been avoiding the compliance of the summons and the advisory issued by the the compliance of the summons and the advisory issued by the

Sayyed 15-WP.3806.2025.docx authorities. In our view, the Petitioner cannot invoke the equitable authorities. In our view, the Petitioner cannot invoke the equitable jurisdiction of this Court by not complying with the summons on one jurisdiction of this Court by not complying with the summons on one hand and thereafter raising a grievance that the Respondents have not hand and thereafter raising a grievance that the Respondents have not complied with the procedure prescribed for blocking the ITC. complied with the procedure prescribed for blocking the ITC. 5.

Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. However, on the request made by the learned counsel for the petition. However, on the request made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, one more final opportunity is given to the Petitioner to Petitioner, one more final opportunity is given to the Petitioner to appear before the authorities on 7 July 2025 at 11:00 a.m. and comply appear before the authorities on 7 July 2025 at 11:00 a.m. and comply with the requisition sought for by the Respondents. Petitioner would be with the requisition sought for by the Respondents.

Petitioner would be free to raise all the contentions before the authorities and the free to raise all the contentions before the authorities and the authorities after hearing Petitioner would pass appropriate orders in authorities after hearing Petitioner would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from 7 July 2025. We accordance with law within a period of two weeks from 7 July 2025. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated on the action of blocking of make it clear that we have not adjudicated on the action of blocking of credit by the authorities.

credit by the authorities.

6.

The Petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs. The Petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs. (Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/07/2025 18:00:19