Sandvik Asia PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Thru The Revenue Secretary, Dept. Of Revenue , Ministry Of Finance And Ors

Held

The Court held that the main issue raised in the writ petition has been addressed by the Finance Act No. (2) of 2024, which amended Section 140(7) of the CGST Act with retrospective effect. Consequently, the Court agreed to set aside the impugned order dated August 25, 2018. The matter was remanded to the relevant proper officer for disposal. The proper officer is directed to take cognizance of the Finance Act of 2024 and decide the case in accordance with law. All contentions of all parties are left open for consideration by the proper officer. The petition was disposed of without any costs.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sandvik Coromant India Pvt. Ltd., formerly Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 25, 2018, passed by a proper officer. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the parties have reached an agreement regarding the main issue. The core of the dispute appears to relate to the interpretation or application of Section 140(7) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The parties have agreed that the issue has been addressed by an amendment to this section via the Finance Act No. (2) of 2024, which has retrospective effect.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.08.2018, which was passed prior to the retrospective amendment of Section 140(7) of the CGST Act by the Finance Act No. (2) of 2024, is liable to be set aside in light of the said amendment? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner likely argued that the impugned order was erroneous because it did not consider the subsequent retrospective amendment to Section 140(7) of the CGST Act, which would have resolved the issue in their favor. They would have relied on the principle that retrospective amendments should be given effect to, even for past orders, if they clarify or alter the legal position. Revenue/State's contention: The Respondents (Union of India & Ors. and the State) agreed with the Petitioner that the issue stands addressed by the Finance Act No. (2) of 2024. They did not appear to contest the retrospective effect of the amendment or its applicability to the present case. Their argument was essentially that the amendment resolves the dispute.