M/S Lear Automotive INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Commissionerate Dehradun
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Lear Automotive India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court. The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to consider a departmental Circular bearing No. 235/29/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024, which was relevant to the matter. The respondent, Additional Commissioner CGST, stated they had no objection to the petitioner availing a remedy under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if permissible. The High Court, in its order, did not delve into the merits of the case.
Held
The Court did not decide the matter on merits. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by reserving liberty for the petitioner to prefer an application invoking the provisions of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This liberty is subject to the application being filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the High Court's order. The Court directed that if such an application is made, the Adjudicating Authority shall consider and dispose of it on its merits. The judgment explicitly states that this order should not be construed as a determination of the matter on merits, and any subsequent appeal or remedy will be considered independently without being influenced by observations made in the writ petition. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred by not considering departmental Circular No. 235/29/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024 in its decision? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The Adjudicating Authority failed to take notice and appreciate the aforementioned departmental circular, which has a direct bearing on the issue before it. Respondent's contention: The respondent indicated no objection to the petitioner availing the remedy under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, if permissible under law, implying a willingness to allow the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies rather than adjudicating the current writ petition on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:UHC:4679-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 202 OF 2025
09TH JUNE, 2025
M/s Lear Automotive India Private Limited
…… Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner CGST …… Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Aldak, learned counsel with Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2)
The learned counsel after arguing the matter for sometime would submit that in the instant case also he may be permitted to avail the remedy vested in the 1
2025:UHC:4679-DB assessee under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3) It is the case of the petitioner that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to take notice and
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.