IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15192 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15192 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

NAGINDAS HIRALAL BHAYANI & ANR.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR. PARTH MEHTA, FOR MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s)

No. 1,3 SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 18/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Parth Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ankit Shah, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

2. At the outset, Mr. Uchit Sheth learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court dated 11.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 11583 of 2023 and has submitted that similar Press release dated 15.7.2020, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court has been quashed and set- aside. So far as the quashing of the show-cause notice is concerned, it is submitted that the Bombay High Court has not interfered with the same. However, similar directions may be passed. Learned advocate Mr. Parth Mehta appearing for learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has no objection as the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:

“A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and declare the impugned clarification dated 15.7.2020 (annexed at Annexure A) issued by Ministry of Finance, Union of India as being ultra-vires to Entry 62/63 of Notification No. 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 issued under Section 9 of the GST Acts;

B. This Hon'ble Court may be declare that the impugned clarification dated 15.7.2020 (annexed at Annexure A) issued by Ministry of Finance, Union of India is contrary to the judgement of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of ICPA Health Products (P) Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise (2004) 4 SCC 481;

C. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that handrubs containing active pharmaceutical ingredient and having prophylactic value are classifiable as medicaments under Entry 62/63 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 and taxable at the rate of 6%CGST +

6% SGST;

D. In the alternative this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the retrospective operation of the impugned clarification dated 15.7.2020 (annexed at Annexure A) issued by Ministry of Finance, Union of India is manifestly arbitrary and violating Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

E. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order quashing proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3 by relying upon the impugned clarification dated 15.7.2020;

F. In the alternative this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the Respondents from initiating coercive action against the Petitioners without issuance of show cause notice and adjudication of liability;

G. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative this this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to issue show cause notice under Section 73 of the GST