AASTHA ENTERPRISES vs THE UNION OF INDIA THR THE REVENUE SECRETARY AND ORS — HCBM10140872026

Case under Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 08-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010140872026

Filing Number

WP/8133/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Coram

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Bench Type

Division

Category

INDIRECT TAXES ( 17 )

Sub-Category

GST Goods and Services Tax ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AASTHA ENTERPRISES

    Adv. C B Thakar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THR THE REVENUE SECRETARY AND ORS

  2. 2.ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND C EX THANE AUDIT

  3. 3.ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST AND C EX THANE RURAL

Case History

  1. 08-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF

    Summary: Aastha Enterprises' Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8133 of 2026 against the Union of India and CGST officials was notified for removal of office objections on 23rd-24th April 2026, but the petitioner and advocate failed to comply. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a second opportunity. The case was adjourned with two weeks granted to remove office objections, failing which registration will be refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Aastha Enterprises' Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 8133 of 2026 against the Union of India and CGST officials was notified for removal of office objections on 23rd-24th April 2026, but the petitioner and advocate failed to comply. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a second opportunity. The case was adjourned with two weeks granted to remove office objections, failing which registration will be refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case