Case Details: Christie’s India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of Indian (2025) 35 Centax 128 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
- S/Shri Tushar Jarwal, Daliya Singh & Rahul Sateeja, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Shruti Vyas, Shri Abhishek Mishra & Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, contending that it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. Alongside, the petitioner also challenged a GST demand order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, raising tax dues of Rs. 1 crore with an equivalent amount towards penalty and interest. The petitioner submitted that Rs. 21 lakhs had already been paid by the supplier and sought an unconditional stay on recovery, arguing that under appeal provisions, only a 10% pre-deposit would have been required to obtain a stay.
High Court Held
The Bombay High Court noted that at least three High Courts had already upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and that the State should not be deprived of its dues merely due to disputes between the petitioner and the supplier regarding liability. The payment of ₹21 lakhs by the supplier did not discharge the entire tax liability, and the petitioner could pursue recovery from the supplier separately. Observing that this was not a fit case for an unconditional stay, the Court ordered that recovery of the impugned demand be stayed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 20 lakhs within six weeks, pending adjudication of the writ petition.
