Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351901
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2021
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1466 OF 2021
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2021
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1822 OF 2021
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2021
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1714 OF 2021
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5375 OF 2022
Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India ... Respondents
Mr. Prithiviraj Choudhary a/w Mr. Ankit Trivedi, Ms. Kausar Jahan Sayed i/b Vashi Assocaites for the Petition in WP/1822/2021.
Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Mahesh Raichandani, Ms. Dhanishta Kawale i/b UBR Legal, for the Petitioner in WP/1466/2021, WP/1449/2021, WP/1714/2021 and WP/5375/2022.
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Mihir Mehta, Mr. Mohit Raval i/b PDS Legal, for the Petitioner in WP/822/2021, 825/2021.
Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w Mr. Saket Ketkar, for the Respondent in WP/825/2021.
Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Ms. Maya Majumdar, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondent in WP/5375/2022.
Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Harpreet Kaur, for the Respondent in WP/822/2021.
Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondent in WP/1466/2021.
Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh, Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondent in WP/1822/2021.
Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Ms. Mamta Omle, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondent in WP/1449/2021.
Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh, Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Ms. Mamta Omle, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondent in WP/1714/2021.
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, for the Respondent No.5 in WP/1822/2021.
CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED : 23 September 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per- M.S. Sonak, J.) :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule was issued in all these Petitions on 30 January 2023 by a Co-ordinate Bench comprising Nitin Jamdar, J. (as His Lordship then was) and Abhay Ahuja, J. Interim relief was also granted by the same order.
3. The order dated 30 January 2023, issuing Rule and granting interim reliefs, is transcribed below for the convenience of reference.
“ Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Common ground raised in these petitions is that the impugned Show Cause Notices raising demand of service tax issued to the Petitioners are not preceded by pre consultation which is mandatory as per circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 deals with service tax provides for issuance of Show Cause Notice. Though section 73 does not provide that Show Cause Notice for recovery of service tax under section 73 should be preceded by pre-consultation, the same has been incorporated by virtue of Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CS dated 10 March 2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and subsequently clarified by circular dated 19 November 2020.
3. Master circular on Show Cause Notices dated 10 March 2017 states that consultation with noticee before issuance of Show Cause Notice is mandatory for claim above fifty lakhs and it is an important steps towards trade facilitation and promoting voluntary compliance and to reduce the necessity of issuing Show Cause Notice. It is common ground that the demands made in these petitions are all above fifty lakhs.
4. Whether pre show cause consultation in the stipulated circumstances is mandatory or otherwise has fallen for consideration of various Courts. The learned Counsel for the parties have placed on record the following decisions : Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissioneate, Tube Investment of India Ltd. Versus Union of India, Hitachi Power Europe GMBH Versus C.B.I. & C., Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & C. Ex., Chennai, Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissionerate Versus Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Excellency Service Versus Union of India, DHR Holding India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Back Office IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Yaduka Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, The Commissioner of CGST, Kolkata Audit -I, Commissionerate vs. M/s. Saumya Agrotech Private Limited & Ors., M/s.Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr., L and T Hydrocarbon
Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, Union of India Versus Garware Nylons Ltd., Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. Versus Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, Nanya Imports & Exports Enterprises Versus Commr. of Cus. Chennai, Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines versus Ramjee, Union of India Versus Bajaj Tempo Limited, B P L Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, K. P.Varghese v. Income-tax Officer , Raza Textiles Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Rampur, ITW Signode India Ltd. Versus Collector of Central Tax, Phoenix Mills Ltd. Versus Union of India, Alpa Management Consultants P. Ltd. Versus Commr. of S.T. Bangalore, Commr. of S.T. Bangalore Versus Alp Management Consultants P. Ltd., Kush Constructions Versus CGST Nacin, ZTI, Kanpur, Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore Versus Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., Sharma Fabricators & Electors Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Allahabad, Union of India Versus Vicco Laboratories, State of West Bengal Versus Calcutta Club Limited, Kothari Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus Union of India, Union of India Versus Kothari Petrochemicals Ltd.and Sai Cuisine Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.
5. As regards the decision of the High Court of De
