Grihashakti Steels PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the present case was squarely covered by the previous judgments of the Gauhati High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to the decision in WP(C) No. 2918/2020 (M/S Topcem India vs. Union of India & Ors.) and the subsequent upholding of that judgment by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 162/2021 (The Union of India & Ors. vs. M/S Keshari Industries A Partnership Firm). The Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent. Consequently, the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2020, which demanded a sum of Rs. 24,28,115/- for the recovery of Education Cess refund, was set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by the High Court and upheld by a Division Bench, subsequent identical matters should follow the precedent, and the revenue cannot pursue the same demand. The writ petition was allowed, and the demand notice was quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, Grihashakti Steels Pvt. Ltd., is aggrieved by a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued by the Central Excise authorities. The notice sought to recover a refund previously granted under the head of Education Cess, along with interest, under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that this issue had already been decided by the Gauhati High Court in a batch of writ petitions, specifically citing WP(C) No. 2918/2020 (M/S Topcem India vs. Union of India & Ors.). In that lead case, the Court had set aside a similar demand notice. The Union of India had appealed this decision, but the Division Bench, in Writ Appeal No. 162/2021 (The Union of India & Ors. vs. M/S Keshari Industries A Partnership Firm), upheld the Single Judge's order. The petitioner argued that the present case was covered by these previous judgments. The GST respondents did not dispute these submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2020, demanding recovery of Education Cess refund amounting to Rs. 24,28,115/- along with interest, is liable to be set aside in light of previous judgments of this Court? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the issue raised in the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice had already been conclusively decided by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 2918/2020 (M/S Topcem India vs. Union of India & Ors.), where similar action was set aside. They further submitted that this decision was upheld by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 162/2021 (The Union of India & Ors. vs. M/S Keshari Industries A Partnership Firm), and therefore, the present case should be decided in their favour based on precedent. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by the GST counsel, did not dispute the propositions and facts submitted by the petitioner regarding the previous judgments. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.