2025 (6) TMI 1503 - HC - GST

Challenge to demand made - case of petitioner is that the demand raised with respect to Financial Year 2017-18 u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 has no legs to stand in view of the decision taken by the GST Council in its 31st meeting on 22.12.2018 and subsequent amendment carried out in Section 50 of the CGST Act with retrospective effect by virtue of Section 112 of the Finance Act 2021 - HELD THAT - The present case is similar to Utkal Automobile Private Limited Vrs. Union of India Others 2022 (8) TMI 368 - ORISSA HIGH COURT where it was held that This Court is inclined to allow this writ petition by setting aside the Demand Information Notice DIN-20200262WJ00005DF3DE in Communication bearing C.No. GST/01/INTEREST/BBSRIX/2020/64 dated 18th February 2020 (Annexure-3) and remand the matter to the Superintendent GST Central Excise Bhubaneswar-IX Range for reconsideration of the matter taking into consideration the amendment carried out by virtue of the Finance Act 2021. This writ petition challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Superintendent of GST Central Excise Kendrapara Range is bound to be allowed. Accordingly the order-in-original dated 30.01.2025 vide Annexure-1 stands set aside and the matter is now remitted to the Superintendent of GST Central Excise Kendrapara Range for reconsideration of the matter - Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Orissa High Court, through Hon'ble Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman, allowed the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 by the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Kendrapara Range. The petitioner contested the GST demand for FY 2017-18 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, relying on the GST Council's 31st meeting decision and retrospective amendment to Section 50 by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2021. The Court noted reliance on the earlier decision in *Utkal Automobile Private Limited v. Union of India & Others*, W.P.(C) No.10277/2020, dated 11.07.2022, which the Junior Standing Counsel conceded was directly applicable and rendered the impugned demand untenable. The Court set aside the original order and remitted the matter for reconsideration strictly in accordance with law, taking into account the 11.07.2022 ruling. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.