Bajaj Auto Limited vs. Commissioner Of Uttarakhand State Goods And Service Tax

Facts

Bajaj Auto Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 01.12.2025, passed by respondent no.3 under Section 73(9) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, read with Rule 122. This order raised a demand of differential tax at 10% on spare parts manufactured by the petitioner during the financial year 2021-22. The demand arose after an audit under Section 65 of the CGST Act, followed by a show cause notice issued on 26.09.2025, to which the petitioner replied on 04.11.2025. The impugned order was passed after considering the reply and providing a personal hearing.

Held

The Court declined to examine the impugned order on merits. It found that the Adjudicating Authority had specifically examined the issue of HSN code classification for the spare parts, determining that they should fall under HSN code 8714, attracting a tax rate of 28%, whereas the petitioner had paid tax at 18%. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. It held that the requirement of pre-deposit to avail the remedy of appeal cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory remedy. The Court also noted that any additional submission regarding favorable orders in similar cases from other states could be pressed before the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, with all pleas and contentions to be considered and decided on merits by the appellate authority. No observation made in the writ petition would impede the petitioner's case before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Adjudicating Officer properly considered the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, and if not, should the matter be remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that their reply was not properly considered by the Adjudicating Officer, and therefore, the matter should be remitted back. They relied on several judgments, including Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., Avandtha Holdings Ltd. Vs. Proper Officer, GST, New Delhi, OLA Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Holy Land Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Avato Ward, Delhi, Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Delhi Department of Trade & Taxes, Rays Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and Ideal Datacom Network and Electrical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Tax Officer, Cochin. The petitioner also argued that the requirement of pre-deposit to avail the statutory appeal remedy should not prevent the court from entertaining the writ petition. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court noted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.