M/S. Lotus Industries And Anr. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Lotus Industries and its proprietor Nitesh Jain, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging an order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Silchar (Respondent No. 3). The respondents are the Union of India, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Guwahati, and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Silchar. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the matter reached the High Court via a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Another –Vs- M/s VVF Limited and Another; reported in (2020) 20 SCC 57. Both counsels for the petitioner and the respondent GST Department agreed with this position. Consequently, the Court ordered that the impugned order dated 30.06.2017, issued by the respondent No. 3, stands set aside and quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law, in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court should dispose of the case in line with that precedent. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.06.2017, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Silchar, is liable to be set aside and quashed? The petitioner, represented by Ms. M.L. Gope, did not explicitly argue their case but conceded to the submission made by the GST Department's counsel. The respondent GST Department, represented by Mr. S.C. Keyal, submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Another –Vs- M/s VVF Limited and Another; reported in (2020) 20 SCC 57. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel conceded to this submission.