Pawan Baid vs. The Uniion Of INDIA And 4 Ors.
Held
The Court held that the issue in the present writ petition is covered by the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 2628/2025. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the demand-cum-show cause notices dated 27.12.2023 and the order dated 11.03.2024, which were impugned in the writ petition. The matter was then remanded back to respondent No. 5 (The Chairperson, Goods and Services Tax Council) for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to take necessary steps as available in law and decide the matter afresh, ensuring that the petitioner is afforded due opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that where a case is covered by a prior High Court judgment and the revenue does not object, the same relief should be granted and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication with due process.
Facts
The petitioner, Pawan Baid, owner of M/s Pawan Iron Industry, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. The petition challenged demand-cum-show cause notices dated December 27, 2023, and an order dated March 11, 2024. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in WP(C) No. 2628/2025, and a similar direction would resolve their case. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for CGST, did not object to this submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgment and order dated 07.08.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 2628/2025, and if a similar direction would suffice for the petitioner's case. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present case is factually and legally similar to WP(C) No. 2628/2025, and therefore, the relief granted in that case should be extended to them. They relied on the principle that similar cases should be treated alike. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through the learned Standing Counsel, CGST, did not object to the petitioner's submission. This implies they conceded that the previous judgment might be applicable or that they did not wish to contest the petitioner's assertion on this point.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010079192024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2218/2024 PAWAN BAID SON OF BUDHMAL BAID, AS OWNER OF M/S PAWAN IRON INDUSTRY, SILCHAR KXJ ROAD, KHELMA, RAMNAGAR, SILCHAR, CACHAR- 788003. VERSUS THE UNIION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781001. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION SILCHAR CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD
REVENUE BUILDING ASSAM- 788001. 4:THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS 1ST FLOOR TOWER NBCC PLAZA 1
Page No.# 2/3
SECTOR-5 PUSHP VIHAR
NEW DELHI- 110017. 5:THE CHAIRPERSON GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL 5TH FLOOR TOWER-II JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING
JANPATH ROAD CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI- 110001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARAF, MR. S S GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.