1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9705 OF 2009 Unilever Trumbull Research Services, Inc. ..Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Others ..Respondents. Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, senior advocate with Mr.Prakash Shah & Mr.Jas Sanghvi i/by PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard parties. The petitioners have approached this court against the show cause notice dated 4th March 2009. Apart from this, a declaration is also sought that section 201(1)(A) and explanation to section 191 as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect as violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India, and null and void and non-est. Interim relief has been prayed to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the show cause notice. 2. After hearing the parties and considering the judgment of this Court in Vodafone International Holding B.V. vs. Union of India 2008 TOIL-602-HC (Mum- IT) and order passed by Supreme Court in SLP being SLP No.463/09 preferred against that judgment anemly in Vodafone International Holding vs. Union of India 2 in MANU/SC/105/2009 in our opinion, it will not be appropriate to consider the challenge to the show cause notice at this stage. In our opinion, it will be open to the petitioners to raise whatever challenges including the issue as to jurisdiction before the authority issuing the show cause notice. On such reply being filed and in terms of orders of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International supra, the jurisdictional issues will be decided as preliminary issue by the said authority. If the orders are adverse, it will be open to the petitioners to approach this Court against the said findings on the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction. 3. In the light of the above, learned counsel does not press the petition and reserves his right to take up other pleas including challenge to section 107(17) (1A) and explanation to section 191 in appropriate proceedings if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order on the preliminary issue. 4. Petition dismissed with lliberty as stated in para 3 above. Petitioner has been granted time upto 30th December 2009 to file his reply. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)