Anand Are Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST And Central Excise And Ors

Held

The Court held that the issue raised by the Petitioner was indeed covered by the decision of this Court in Hikal Limited Vs Union Of India & Ors, decided on 11 September 2025. The Court adopted the reasoning from the Hikal Limited judgment. Consequently, the impugned show cause notice dated 15 May 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court, the same principle should be applied, and the impugned action should be set aside. The operative direction was to quash the show cause notice. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The Petitioner, Anand Arc Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a show cause notice dated 15 May 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise. The Petitioner contended that the issue raised in their petition was covered by a previous decision of the same High Court in the case of Hikal Limited Vs Union Of India & Ors, decided on 11 September 2025. The Respondents, represented by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, did not dispute this position. The State was also represented by Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issue raised by the Petitioner in the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in Hikal Limited Vs Union Of India & Ors, decided on 11 September 2025? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the present case is factually and legally similar to the Hikal Limited case, and therefore, the principles laid down in that judgment should apply. They relied on the decision in Hikal Limited Vs Union Of India & Ors. Revenue's Contention: The Respondents, through their counsel Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, did not dispute the Petitioner's assertion that the issue was covered by the Hikal Limited judgment.