Bombay High Court bench expands as CESTAT member Ajay Sharma appointed judge

On 5 November 2026 the Central Government issued a notification appointing Ajay Sharma, a judicial member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court for two years. The appointment confirms that a tribunal judge may be elevated to a High Court under the existing collegium‑executive mechanism. The change directly affects litigants and counsel handling revenue‑related appeals before the Bombay High Court. It also clarifies the scope of Article 217 of the Constitution regarding the executive’s role after a collegium recommendation.

Full News Breakdown

The collegium had recommended two names for elevation; one was cleared while the other was not, leading to Sharma’s appointment as an additional judge.

• Case Name

• Court: Bombay High Court

• Date: 5 November 2026

• Operative Order: Appointment of Ajay Sharma as an additional judge for a two‑year term

• Practical Outcome: The High Court bench now includes a judge with specialised customs and tax appellate experience

How Does This Affect You?

Previously, the legal community could not be certain whether a CESTAT judicial member could be transferred to a High Court bench, creating strategic ambiguity in revenue litigation. The notification resolves that such a transfer is permissible and that the executive may act on a collegium recommendation without additional statutory amendment. Consequently, parties can now anticipate a bench composition that may include judges with tribunal expertise, altering the calculus of appeal strategy and precedent reliance.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Review all pending customs and service‑tax appeals in the Bombay High Court to determine whether the new judge’s background will affect the interpretation of CEST provisions, and adjust argumentation accordingly.

• Amend briefing templates to highlight the judge’s CESTAT experience, citing Article 217 of the Constitution as authority for the executive’s compliance with collegium advice.

• File any pending applications for judicial review of CESTAT orders before the new judge’s tenure begins, to secure a favourable interpretative window.

• Cite Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association v. Union of India (2015) as persuasive authority on the collegium’s primacy when opposing a party’s challenge to the appointment’s validity.

• Advise clients engaged in import‑export disputes to monitor early judgments of Justice Sharma for emerging jurisprudence that could reshape liability assessments under the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Act, 1992.

For Law Students

This case illustrates how the judiciary interprets the balance of power between the collegium and the executive in judicial appointments. The core doctrinal focus is the interplay between constitutional appointment provisions and executive implementation.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Constitutional Law – Judicial Appointments

• Administrative Law – Executive discretion

• Revenue Law – Customs and Service Tax jurisprudence

• Comparative analysis of tribunal‑to‑court career pathways

• The role of precedent in appointment controversies

Comparable cases include In re: Appointment of Judges (2020) and Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association v. Union of India (2015); contrasting them reveals how courts delineate the limits of executive action after a collegium recommendation.

For Businesses

• Import‑export firms must reassess the risk profile of pending customs appeals, as a judge with CESTAT experience may interpret valuation and classification provisions more stringently.

• Chief Financial Officers should convene a review of all high‑court service‑tax disputes to determine whether early settlement is advisable before the new judge issues any precedent‑setting opinions.

• Corporate legal departments need to update internal checklists for high‑court filings to include a step that verifies the bench composition for revenue matters.

• Companies with large customs liabilities should track Justice Sharma’s early rulings; failure to adapt compliance procedures in response could result in adverse tax assessments.

Key Takeaways

• The law now expressly permits the elevation of a CESTAT judicial member to a High Court bench under the collegium‑executive framework.

• Practitioners must incorporate the judge’s specialised background into case strategy, briefing, and filing decisions.

• The executive can implement collegium recommendations without further legislative amendment, limiting judicial review on procedural grounds.

• Watch for the forthcoming amendment to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Act, 1992, expected in the 2027 budget session, which may codify bench‑composition considerations.

• In‑house counsel should revise their appellate risk‑assessment matrices before the next filing deadline on 31 December 2026 to account for the new judicial perspective.

Source: Centre clears appointment of CESTAT judicial member Ajay Sharma as Bombay High Court judge