Medicamen Biotech Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 89 & Anr.

Facts

Medicamen Biotech Limited, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ward 89, under Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act. The respondents, represented by the Sales Tax Officer and another, accepted notice. The petitioner sought to have the impugned order set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The parties agreed that the issue in this petition was identical to that in a batch of matters (W.P.(C) 10869/2024 & connected matters) previously disposed of by the Court on August 30, 2024.

Held

The Court allowed the present petition. The impugned order dated December 29, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision within a period of six months from the date of the order. This decision was based on the agreement between the parties that the controversy was identical to that in W.P.(C) 10869/2024 and connected matters, which had been disposed of by the Court on August 30, 2024. The adjudication was to proceed in accordance with law and the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents in the aforementioned prior order. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 29, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act, is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the controversy in the present petition is identical to that in W.P.(C) 10869/2024 and connected matters, which were disposed of by this Court on August 30, 2024. Based on this, the petitioner sought a similar relief of setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. Respondents' contention: The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the controversy is identical to the aforementioned batch of matters and agreed with the petitioner's submission that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider afresh, in accordance with law and the statement recorded in the order dated August 30, 2024.