Bombay High Court
Ani Technologies Private Limited vs Union Of India on 10 October, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:19397-DB
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
31-WPL-18561-2025.DOCX
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2025.10.16
15:25:38
+0530 Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.18561 OF 2025
ANI Technologies Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent
______________________________________________________
Mr. Rohan Shah, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Vidushi
Maheshwari, Tushar Jarwal, Rahul Sateeja and Daliya
Singh (VC) i/b. DMD Advocates for Petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Vyas a/w Niyati Mankad (VC), Ms. Priyanka Singh
for Respondent No.2.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED : 10 October 2025 P.C.:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned order dated 28 February 2025. This order is appealable.
However, it was pointed out to us that this order is made way beyond the maximum period of limitation in Section 73(4)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Accordingly, by our order of 6 August 2025, we protected the Petitioner and granted the Respondents some time to file a reply, and a reply is filed by the Respondents Page 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2025 23:38:32 ::: 31-WPL-18561-2025.DOCX trying to explain why it was not possible to pass the order within the period referred to under Section 73(4)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Earlier, we were under the impression that the period prescribed cannot be deviated from under any circumstances. However, now we find that the proviso to Section 73(4)(b) provides that the Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of service tax due under sub-section (2) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so. At least prima facie, the expression "where it is possible to do so" militates against the argument that under no circumstances can an order be made beyond the period of one year.
5. Mr Shah, however, submits that the reasons set out in the affidavit do not make out a case of impossibility, which is the standard to be applied in such matters. This argument will have to be tested by delving into factual issues. Besides, this argument is quite different from the one projected earlier about an absolute bar to make an order after the expiry of one year. Investigation into such matters would involve entering the thicket of disputed facts. All such issues cannot be conveniently determined in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the law has provided the Petitioner with a remedy of an appeal.
Page 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2025 23:38:32 :::31-WPL-18561-2025.DOCX
6. The Petitioner, as noted above, has an alternate and efficacious remedy available under the Law. The Appellate Authority would be best equipped to go into the question of whether it was possible for the Central Excise Officer to make an order within a one-year period referred to under Section 73(4)(b). No exceptional case is made out to deviate from the normal practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies.
7. We refer to our decision in the case of Oberoi Constructions Ltd. vs. The Union of India and Ors. 1, in which we have considered this issue by relying upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By following the reasoning therein, as also the reasoning in the precedents referred to therein, we decline to entertain this Petition.
8. However, if the Petitioner wishes to institute an Appeal against the impugned order dated 28 February 2025 and such appeal is instituted within four weeks from the date of uploading of this order by complying with all the prescribed requirements like pre-deposit, etc., we request the Appellate Authority to entertain such an Appeal without adverting to the issue of limitation.
9. Further, we clarify that all contentions of all parties are left explicitly open for the decision of the Appellate Authority. The observations, if any, in this order are only prima facie and the same need not influence the Appellate Authority in disposing of such an Appeal if it is indeed 1 . O.S. Writ Petition (L) No.33260 of 2023 disposed of on 11.11.2024 Page 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2025 23:38:32 ::: 31-WPL-18561-2025.DOCX instituted.
10. This Petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms and without any orders for costs.
11. All concerned are to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.
(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J.) Page 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2025 23:38:32 :::