The Uttarakhand High Court refused to entertain the writ petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited contesting a GST adjudication order, holding that the pre-requisite of pre-deposit for availing the appellate remedy could not be a reason to avoid the regulatory appeal procedure under the GST Act.
The bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay stated that an alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order. In these cases, the interference in writ jurisdiction was not desired.
Also Read: Kerala HC Quashes Multi-Year GST SCN; Calls for Separate Notices & Fair Hearing
The court mentioned that “The requirement under law of making a pre-deposit to avail the remedy of appeal cannot itself be a ground to permit the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy.”
On December 1, 2025, the petition arrived from an adjudication order, passed u/s 73(9) of the GST Act, after an audit u/s 65, by which a differential tax demand of 10% was raised for spare parts manufactured during the FY 2021–22.
The matter concerns the classification of goods. The adjudicating authority held that the products categorised under HSN Code 8714, which includes the parts and accessories of vehicles such as motorcycles and bicycles, and attracts GST at 28%, whereas the applicant had released tax at 18%.
On behalf of Bajaj Auto, it mentioned that its response to the SCN had not been acknowledged and that the case needed remand. The Court, on perusal of the adjudication order, determined that the authority had analysed the problem of classification and recorded a clear finding on the applicable HSN code and tax obligation.
The court, while considering the availability of an appeal u/s 107, refused to analyse the case on merits. It said that any favourable orders passed in similar cases can be urged to the appellate authority.
Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the privilege to the applicant to take the regulatory remedy, with appeal and claims left open for consideration on merits.
| Case Title | Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Commissioner of Uttarakhand, State GST & Ors. |
| Case No. | Writ Petition (M/B) No.130 of 2026 |
| For Petitioner | Mr Makarand Joshi and Mr Suryakant Maithani |
| For Respondent | Ms Puja Banga |
| Uttarakhand High Court | Read Order |
