Siemens LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Jt. Secretary (Revenue) 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 retrospectively. Regarding other reliefs prayed for, the Court observed that the parties are free to prosecute them before the appropriate forum, which will take cognizance of the Finance Act, 2024. The Court noted that the Petitioner's appeals are pending before the Maharashtra & Goa Appellate Authorities and, while these authorities were not parties to the present petition, the Court expressed confidence that if the Petitioner applies for expeditious hearing, such an application would be considered in accordance with law. All contentions of all parties were left open. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Facts

Siemens Limited (Petitioner) filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging certain actions or orders related to GST. The Respondents are the Union of India and others, along with the State. The specific tax periods and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not specified. The procedural history indicates that the parties agreed that the main issue raised in the petition has been addressed by an amendment to Section 140(7) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act (CGST Act) by the Finance Act No.(2) of 2024, which has retrospective effect. The Petitioner's appeals are pending before the Maharashtra & Goa Appellate Authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment to Section 140(7) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act (CGST Act) by the Finance Act No.(2) of 2024, with retrospective effect, addresses the main issue raised by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner, through its counsel, agreed that the main issue raised in the Writ Petition stands addressed by the aforementioned amendment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's specific arguments on this issue are not recorded in the judgment. 2. What is the appropriate course of action for the remaining reliefs sought by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought expeditious hearing of its pending appeals before the Maharashtra & Goa Appellate Authorities. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's specific arguments on this issue are not recorded in the judgment. The State's counsel was also present.