Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. UOI
Case data and operative result
Repository ID: F2J-C-0220
Court / Tribunal: Bombay High Court
Case number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27725 OF 2024
Decision date: —
Law family: GST
Outcome category: Quashed / set aside
Sections / provisions: CGST 73; Section 73; Article 226
Extractive case note
[2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay)[14-10-2024] GST : Where assessee filed writ petition alleging vagueness in show cause notice, since said notice was not vague and contained all relevant particulars, allegation of assessee was misconceived; thus, petition of assessee was to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs ■■■ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india* M.S. SONAK AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27725 OF 2024 OCTOBER 14, 2024 Demands - Tax or ITC not involving fraud, etc. - Show cause notice, defects in - Violation of natural justice - A show cause notice was issued to assessee and thereafter impugned adjudication order was passed - Assessee challenged same vide instant writ petition and submitted that show cause notice was vague and bereft of relevant particulars, as a result, assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to said notice - It was urged that there was violation of principles of natural justice, and since show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction, impugned order was a nullity - HELD : On perusal of show cause notice it was noticed that it was not at all vague, but rather contained all material particulars - Since grounds for alleged vagueness in show cause notice were misconceived, instant petition of assessee was to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs [Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] [Para 20] [In favour of revenue] CASES REFERRED TO Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1 (para 11), Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [2004] 50 SCL 93 (SC) (para 14), Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters Association [2019] 104 taxmann.com 364/73 GST 211 (SC) (para 15), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board Direct Taxes [2004] 137 Taxman 242/267 ITR 647 (SC) (para 16) and Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 taxmann.com 1287/166 ELT 153 (SC) (para 17). Vishal Agrawal, Abhishek Deodhar and Rishabh Jain for the Petitioner. Jitendra B. Mishra, Ashutosh Mishra, Ms.
Operative-result extract
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner case and after going into the validity and legality thereof quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2024 (Exhibit "Al") as also the Show Cause Notice dated 07.12.2023. " 3. The argument is that the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was vague and bereft of the relevant particulars. As a result, the Petitioners were deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to the impugned show cause notice or otherwise defend themselves. On this ground, it was urged that there was a violation of principles of natural justice or, in any event, the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was without jurisdiction. It was further urged that the order dated 22 July 2024 made on adjudicating the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 is, therefore, a nullity. 4. Mr Agrawal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the impugned show cause notice was utterly vague. He pointed out that in the impugned order dated 22 July 2024, the adjudicating authority had also admitted that the impugned show cause notice was vague. He submitted that under these circumstances, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating not only the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 but also the impugned order dated 22 July 2024, based upon the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023. 5. On perusing the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 at Exhibit-I (pages 103 to 145 of the paper book in this Petition), we are satisfied that it is not at al
Download the complete local judgment PDF (F2J-C-0220)
The complete packaged judgment text and PDF are the controlling records. The case note is extractive and should not be treated as a substitute for the operative order or later-history verification.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: CGST 73
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- See the source-driven case record below.
Material facts and background
[2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay)[14-10-2024] GST : Where assessee filed writ petition alleging vagueness in show cause notice, since said notice was not vague and contained all relevant particulars, allegation of assessee was misconceived; thus, petition of assessee was to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs ■■■ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india* M.S. SONAK AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27725 OF 2024 OCTOBER 14, 2024 Demands - Tax or ITC not involving fraud, etc. - Show cause notice, defects in - Violation of natural justice - A show cause notice was issued to assessee and thereafter impugned adjudication order was passed - Assessee challenged same vide instant writ petition and submitted that show cause notice was vague and bereft of relevant particulars, as a result, assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to said notice - It was urged that there was violation of principles of natural justice, and since show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction, impugned order was a nullity - HELD : On perusal of show cause...
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner case and after going into the validity and legality thereof quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2024 (Exhibit "Al") as also the Show Cause Notice dated 07.12.2023. " 3. The argument is that the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was vague and bereft of the relevant particulars. As a result, the Petitioners were deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to the impugned show cause notice or otherwise defend themselves. On this ground, it was urged that there was a violation of principles of natural justice or, in any event, the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was without jurisdiction. It was further urged that the order dated 22 July 2024 made on adjudicating the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 is, therefore, a nullity. 4. Mr Agrawal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the impugned show cause notice was utterly vague. He pointed out that in the...
Appellant / assessee submissions
[2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay)[14-10-2024] GST : Where assessee filed writ petition alleging vagueness in show cause notice, since said notice was not vague and contained all relevant particulars, allegation of assessee was misconceived; thus, petition of assessee was to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs ■■■ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india* M.S. SONAK AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27725 OF 2024 OCTOBER 14, 2024 Demands - Tax or ITC not involving fraud, etc. - Show cause notice, defects in - Violation of natural justice - A show cause notice was issued to assessee and thereafter impugned adjudication order was passed - Assessee challenged same vide instant writ petition and submitted that show cause notice was vague and bereft of relevant particulars, as a result, assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to said notice - It was urged that there was violation of principles of natural justice, and since show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction, impugned order was a nullity - HELD : On perusal of show cause...
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner case and after going into the validity and legality thereof quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2024 (Exhibit "Al") as also the Show Cause Notice dated 07.12.2023. " 3. The argument is that the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was vague and bereft of the relevant particulars. As a result, the Petitioners were deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to the impugned show cause notice or otherwise defend themselves. On this ground, it was urged that there was a violation of principles of natural justice or, in any event, the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was without jurisdiction. It was further urged that the order dated 22 July 2024 made on adjudicating the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 is, therefore, a nullity. 4. Mr Agrawal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the impugned show cause notice was utterly vague. He pointed out that in the...
Revenue / respondent submissions
December 2023. We are satisfied that this is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the alternate remedy and to take a chance to see whether any relief can be wriggled out of this Court. 11. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that writ petitions may be entertained against the show cause notices where the Petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice; or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or vires of the Act is challenged. Of late, almost as a matter of routine in Petitions to challenge show cause notices, a challenge is thrown to some provisions of the statute. 12. In the present case, considering the relief pressed, the argument was about violating the principles of natural justice because of the alleged vagueness of the impugned show cause notice. However, as noted above, there was no vagueness in the impugned show cause notice. The impugned show cause notice was quite detailed and gave the Petitioners a complete idea of the case they were required to meet. The Petitioners' reply is pretty thorough,...
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner case and after going into the validity and legality thereof quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2024 (Exhibit "Al") as also the Show Cause Notice dated 07.12.2023. " 3. The argument is that the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was vague and bereft of the relevant particulars. As a result, the Petitioners were deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to the impugned show cause notice or otherwise defend themselves. On this ground, it was urged that there was a violation of principles of natural justice or, in any event, the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 was without jurisdiction. It was further urged that the order dated 22 July 2024 made on adjudicating the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 is, therefore, a nullity. 4. Mr Agrawal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the impugned show cause notice was utterly vague. He pointed out that in the...
hearing of the statutory appeals. As noted earlier, the grounds for alleged vagueness in the impugned show cause notice so belatedly raised were entirely misconceived. Therefore, we are satisfied that this Petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. This will, however, not preclude the Petitioners from availing the alternate statutory remedies of appeal, etc., under the provisions of the CGST Act. 20. Accordingly, we dismiss this Petition with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) payable by the Petitioners to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. The Petitioners must file receipts/proof of payment with the Registry by 21 November 2024. ANURAG
Operative decision and relief
[2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay)[14-10-2024] GST : Where assessee filed writ petition alleging vagueness in show cause notice, since said notice was not vague and contained all relevant particulars, allegation of assessee was misconceived; thus, petition of assessee was to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs ■■■ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india* M.S. SONAK AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27725 OF 2024 OCTOBER 14, 2024 Demands - Tax or ITC not involving fraud, etc. - Show cause notice, defects in - Violation of natural justice - A show cause notice was issued to assessee and thereafter impugned adjudication order was passed - Assessee challenged same vide instant writ petition and submitted that show cause notice was vague and bereft of relevant particulars, as a result, assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to said notice - It was urged that there was violation of principles of natural justice, and since show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction, impugned order was a nullity - HELD : On perusal of show cause...
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
- Special Director v. Mohd
- Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters
- Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman
- Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 taxmann.com 1287/166 ELT 153 (SC) (para 17)
- In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 the Hon
- In Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
- In Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters Association
- In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman Central Board
- In Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 taxmann.com 1287/166 ELT 153
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with GST. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Preserve portal notices, e-mail/SMS delivery evidence, reply acknowledgements and the statutory appeal timeline; procedural service facts can determine available relief.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: CGST 73.
- Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court considered: [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay)[14-10-2024] GST : Where assessee filed writ petition alleging vagueness in show cause notice, since said notice was not vague and contained all relevant particulars, allegation of assessee was misconceived;…
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Viswaat Chemicals Ltd.?
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
[2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay)[14-10-2024] GST : Where assessee filed writ petition alleging vagueness in show cause notice, since said notice was not vague and contained all relevant particulars, allegation of assessee was misconceived; thus, petition of assessee was to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs ■■■ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india* M.S.
What did the Bombay High Court ultimately decide?
[2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay)[14-10-2024] GST : Where assessee filed writ petition alleging vagueness in show cause notice, since said notice was not vague and contained all relevant particulars, allegation of assessee was misconceived; thus, petition of assessee was to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs ■■■ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india* M.S.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages CGST 73. The relevant statutory version for Not applicable should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with GST . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- CGST 73 — CGST 73 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under CGST 73 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Authorities appearing in this judgment: Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks; Special Director v. Mohd; Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters; Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman; Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 taxmann.com 1287/166 ELT 153 (SC) (para 17)
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending |
|---|---|
| Pages | 4 |
| SHA-256 | f257021504d386f14674b21f373b1100bfc71c02f3996de6a269ede53acfddd2 |
| Local document URL | Open the packaged local document |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |
Related Finin2min guidance
Sections and statute
Statute references name the cited enactment. Each official reference opens the identified section in a separately dated edition; the judgment extract preserves the wording and period considered by the court.
Section 73 — Central Goods and Services Tax Act