The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has granted interim protection to a taxpayer by restraining the Maharashtra GST department from taking coercive recovery action after finding that the taxpayer’s appeal had allegedly been dismissed despite the non-supply of documents seized by the department. 

The Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode has  directed the tax authorities to provide copies of the seized documents and explain any failure to do so.

Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the appellate authority’s order dismissing its appeal under the GST law. According to the petitioner, the dismissal occurred despite repeated requests for copies of documents that had been seized by the tax authorities during departmental proceedings.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the appellate authority itself had recorded that the taxpayer had sought additional time to submit its defence after collecting the necessary documents. It was argued that without access to the seized records, the petitioner was unable to effectively present its case before the appellate authority. 

The petitioner further relied upon a communication dated January 20, 2025 requesting the authorities to provide copies of documents seized on September 6, 2020. Despite this request, the documents were allegedly never supplied. 

The High Court noted the petitioner’s grievance that the appeal had ultimately been dismissed on the ground that no supporting evidence or documents had been produced and that the petitioner had remained absent during the proceedings.

The petitioner contended that this finding was fundamentally unfair because the very documents necessary to substantiate its defence continued to remain in the custody of the department despite repeated requests for copies. 

After considering the submissions, the Division Bench issued notice to the respondents and made the matter returnable on August 6, 2026. Significantly, pending further hearing, the Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 

The interim protection shields the taxpayer from recovery proceedings while the legality of the appellate order is examined.

The Court also directed the Respondent department to furnish copies of the documents sought by the petitioner in its communication dated January 20, 2025 before the next date of hearing.

Recognising the importance of the documents for the taxpayer’s defence, the Bench further ordered that if the department fails to provide the documents within the stipulated period, it must file an affidavit explaining the reasons for such non-compliance or identify any legal impediment preventing disclosure.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Medical Colleges Not Entitled to Five-Year Subvention After TMA Pai Verdict: Supreme Court