1 127-wp 5651-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5651 OF 2026 Mr. Jagmeet Singh Saluja. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Goods and Services Tax and ors. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. Sahil Dewani, Advocate for the petitioner/s Ms Kalyani Marpakwar, AGP for respondent No.1/State Mr Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 27 th JULY 2026 . Heard Mr Sahil Dewani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Kalyani Marpakwar, the learned AGP for respondent No.1/State and Mr Kunal Nalamwar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks challenge to the impugned show notice dated 13/05/2026, issued by the respondent No.2, thereby calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the penalty under Sections 122(1A), 122(3) (b), 122(3)(d), 122(3)(e) and 125 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’) shall not be imposed upon him. The aforesaid show cause notice is on record, at page No.48 (Annexure C). 2026:BHC-NAG:9530-DB 2 127-wp 5651-26.odt 3. Mr Sahil Dewani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the aforesaid show cause notice is already settled and decided in favour of the petitioner in the case of Shantanu Sanjay Hundek Ari Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in, (2024) 2 High Court Cases (Bom) 306. 4. Mr Sahil Dewani, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India. .Vs. Shantanu Sanjay Hundek ari, reported in, (2025) 27 Centax 14 (S.C) 5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court in WP No. 4045 of 2026 ( Girish Kumar Raval Vs. Union of India and ors.) vide order dated 08/05/2026 has granted interim protection to the petitioner similarly situated to the one involved in the present writ petition. 6. In view of the above, the petitioner has sought challenge to the impugned show notice dated 13/05/2026. However, the fact remains that the respondent-authority have not yet adjudicated against the petitioner nor has imposed any penalty under the aforesaid provisions of the CGST Act and has only issued the show cause notice to the petitioner. 3 127-wp 5651-26.odt 7. In that view of the matter, we permit the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 13/05/2026, before the respondent No.2, pointing out as to how the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and so also the Bombay High Court. 8. The respondents shall adjudicate upon the aforesaid show cause notice and the submissions made by the petitioner, regarding the non applicability of the aforesaid provisions, in accordance with law and more specifically in view of the judgments as referred supra. 9. In case, if the adjudicating authority decides against the petitioner, the said order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 15 days in order to enable the petitioner for challenging the same before this Court. Needless to mention that we have passed this interim order in favour of the petitioner since the petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice issued by respondent No. 3 on the ground of the jurisdictional issue, which is involved in the present writ petition. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. [RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata