Finolex Industries LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Revenue Secty. And Ors.

Held

The Court noted the agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondents that the central issue in the Writ Petition was addressed by the Finance Act No.(2) of 2024, which amended Section 140(7) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act (CGST Act) retrospectively. Based on this consensus, the Court ordered that the impugned orders dated 18.10.2018, 06.12.2018, 30.11.2023, and 18.07.2024 be set aside. The matter was remanded to the relevant proper officer for a fresh consideration. This reconsideration is to be conducted in accordance with the law, specifically taking cognizance of the Finance Act of 2024. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions of all parties were left open for consideration during the fresh assessment. The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs. The ratio decidendi is that where a statutory amendment with retrospective effect resolves the core issue of a pending litigation, the courts may set aside impugned orders and remand the matter for fresh consideration in light of the amended provision.

Facts

The Petitioner, Finolex Industries Ltd., filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging certain orders. The Petitioner sought and was granted leave to amend the petition to challenge additional orders dated 30.11.2023 and 18.07.2024. The parties agreed that the central issue in the petition had been addressed by the Finance Act No.(2) of 2024, which amended Section 140(7) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act (CGST Act) retrospectively. Consequently, the parties jointly submitted that the impugned orders, including those dated 18.10.2018, 06.12.2018, 30.11.2023, and 18.07.2024, should be set aside. The court was requested to remand the matter to the proper officer for fresh consideration in light of the amended Section 140(7) of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment to Section 140(7) of the CGST Act by the Finance Act No.(2) of 2024, with retrospective effect, addresses the core issue raised by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the retrospective amendment to Section 140(7) of the CGST Act by the Finance Act No.(2) of 2024 resolves the dispute. They relied on this amendment to support their prayer for setting aside the impugned orders. Revenue/Respondents' contention: The Respondents agreed with the Petitioner that the amendment to Section 140(7) of the CGST Act by the Finance Act No.(2) of 2024 addresses the main issue. They also supported the prayer for setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the amended law.