^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

SPCX PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
(Bombay High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SONAK
JITENDRA JAIN

Pet. Counsel

Jas Sanghavi

Mihir Mehta

Suyog Bhave

Res. Counsel

---

Petitioner / Applicant	SPCX PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Court	Bombay High Court
State	Maharashtra
Date	Dec 19, 2024
Order No.	WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 18371 OF 2024
Citation	2024(12) TAXREPLY 11913
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
PC:- 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. Heard Mr. Jas Sanghavi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 3. This matter was circulated citing extreme urgency because the Petitioner’s bank account had been frozen yesterday. 4. The bank account has been frozen, given the five orders-in-original, all dated 31 May 2024, collectively demanding ITC of Rs.523.12 crores, interest, and penalty. These Orders are appealable, and we are not satisfied with the usual reasons for not availing the alternate remedy of appeal. 5. Though this Petition was filed on 02 July 2024, it was moved only this morning, citing extreme urgency. 6. Admittedly, the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available under the statute to appeal the Orders in Original dated 31 May 2024. Even the Orders in Original clearly state this. 7. However, as has become routine, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court, alleging a breach of natural justice, and therefore....