GST · F2J-C-2744

Abubakar Mines and Minerals v. Additional Commissioner (AE), CGST, Kolhapur & Anr.

VALIDATED FULL-TEXT JUDGMENT

Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh; Neeraj P. Dhote
Case number: Writ Petition No. 1943 of 2026
Decision date: 2026-09-02
Neutral citation: Not stated in retained copy
CNR: Not stated in retained copy
Disposition: Allowed.

Open complete judgment PDF Public full-text source Official court portal

PDF provenance: The local PDF was generated by Indian Kanoon from the complete validated judgment text. It is searchable and text-matched, but is not an official court-issued PDF. The official court portal is listed separately; no judgment-specific official deep link is asserted.

Two-minute summary

A prohibition order automatically ceases upon expiry of its statutory period, including the permitted extension. Continued detention thereafter lacks authority under section 67(7), so the goods had to be released.

Material facts

By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the continued detention and the prohibition on the Petitioner's goods pursuant to the order dated 26 th September 2024 is contrary to Section 67(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act') and seeks a direction of forthwith release of the Petitioner's goods. I further say and submit that after passing of prohibition order dated 26.09.2024 was issued in the Form GST INS-03 under section 67 (2) read with Rule 139 (4) of the CGST Rules 2017 remained valid for the period prescribed under Section 67 (7) as Gaikwad RD 1 of 3 33-WP-1943-2026.doc mentioned by the petitioner in para No.2 and 4 (a) of the petition is concern. Upon expiry of extended period, the prohibition order automatically came to an end, no separate order was required to revoke the said prohibition, however the petitioner seeks to portray the entire investigation as arbitrary merely because the prohibition order ceased to operate under Section 67 (7) of the Act.

Issues

Whether goods could remain detained under a GST prohibition order after expiry of the maximum period contemplated by section 67(7).

Court reasoning

The above reproduced paragraph No.6 makes it clear that upon expiry of the extended period, the prohibition order automatically comes to an end. The relief, which is sought in the present petition, assailed the continued detention after the order of 26 th September 2024, as violative of Section 67(7) of the CGST Act.

Ratio / controlling principle

Operative order

3. The above reproduced paragraph No.6 makes it clear that upon expiry of the extended period, the prohibition order automatically comes to an end. The relief, which is sought in the present petition, assailed the continued detention after the order of 26 th September 2024, as violative of Section 67(7) of the CGST Act. As it is the Respondents' own contention that the prohibition order comes to an end after the expiry of the extended period of six months, the petition is required to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). 5. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). 6. The Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of.

Statutes and provisions

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 67(7)
section 67
Rule 139
Rules 2017

Scope limits

The decision is confined to the issues decided on the retained record; verify the complete judgment and subsequent history before reliance.

Completeness and review

Source text: Complete judgment text, validated against the public source
PDF status: Generated from validated complete text (not an official court PDF)
Text-to-PDF match: Passed
PDF pages: 2
Source words: 599
Later history: Not verified — check the official court record for later history before reliance (as of 20 Sep 2026)
PDF SHA-256: 5bb2e9f6eb7c09a95f60c769e5c36d38c135328fb3ac0176f761c1b32c2ab39b

Read the complete searchable judgment text

Abubakar Mines And Minerals Thr. Prop. ... vs The Additional Commissioner (Ae) Cgst ... on 2 September, 2026

Abubakar Mines And Minerals Thr. Prop. ... vs The Additional

Commissioner (Ae) Cgst ... on 2 September, 2026

CNR No : HCB

33-WP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1943 OF 2026

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1140 OF 2026

Abubakar Mines and Minerals ...Petitioner.

Versus

The Additional Commissioner (AE)

CGST, Kolhapur and Another ...Respondents.

------------

Mr. Kuldeep Kulkarni for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anand Kulkarni with mr. Shridhar Patil (Through VC) with Mr. Vaibh

Kupawade, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

------------

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.

Date : September 02, 2026.

P. C. :

1. By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the continued detention and the

prohibition on the Petitioner's goods pursuant to the order dated 26 th September 2024 is contrary

to Section 67(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act') and seeks a direction

of forthwith release of the Petitioner's goods.

2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 21st August 2026 and has stated

in paragraph No.6 as under:

"6. I further say and submit that after passing of prohibition order dated 26.09.2024

was issued in the Form GST INS-03 under section 67 (2) read with Rule 139 (4) of the

CGST Rules 2017 remained valid for the period prescribed under Section 67 (7) as

Gaikwad RD 1 of 3 33-WP-1943-2026.doc mentioned by the petitioner in para No.2

and 4 (a) of the petition is concern. I further say and submit that the initial

Commissioner for a period of 3 months in accordance with law. Upon expiry of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/17832064/ 1

Abubakar Mines And Minerals Thr. Prop. ... vs The Additional Commissioner (Ae) Cgst ... on 2 September, 2026

extended period, the prohibition order automatically came to an end, no separate

order was required to revoke the said prohibition, however the petitioner seeks to

portray the entire investigation as arbitrary merely because the prohibition order

ceased to operate under Section 67 (7) of the Act. Such contention of the petitioner is

wholly misconceived. The expiry of prohibition order has no bearing on the legality of

the investigation conducted by the department or on evidentiary material collected

during the course of such investigation."

3. The above reproduced paragraph No.6 makes it clear that upon expiry of the extended period, the

prohibition order automatically comes to an end. The relief, which is sought in the present petition,

assailed the continued detention after the order of 26 th September 2024, as violative of Section

67(7) of the CGST Act. As it is the Respondents' own contention that the prohibition order comes to

an end after the expiry of the extended period of six months, the petition is required to be allowed in

terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).

4. It is clarified that the passing of the present order permitting the release of the goods in the

petitioner's favour, would have no bearing on the legality of the investigation conducted by the

Department or on evidential material collected during the course of investigation.

Gaikwad RD 2 of 3

5. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).

6. The Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]

Gaikwad RD

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/17832064/ 2

Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the official court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history before reliance.