The Himachal Pradesh High Court has cancelled a GST notice that was issued to a manufacturer. The court decided that the notice was not valid because it directly went against a previous decision made in an Advance Ruling, which had already been accepted by both parties.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma stated that once the Advance Ruling had reached finality between the parties, there was “nothing required to be adjudicated” on the same issue, and the notice had to be treated as “non-est.”
A situation has arisen after the Additional Director of the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Department issued a notice on February 14, 2025. This notice is asking for payment under a specific section of the Central Goods and Services Tax law, as well as related rules from the State GST law.
The GST notice asked the applicant to pay the said amount within 30 days and warned that if not respond, the applicant would face ex parte proceedings.
The notice specified that the applicant was to file the evidence for its defence and exhibit whether it sought a personal hearing before adjudication.
The applicant approached the HC instead of filing a response before the adjudicating authority. Before the High Court, the applicant claimed that the issue had earlier been conclusively settled through an Advance Ruling dated April 11, 2022, which had never been contested by the GST authorities.
The earlier advance ruling is related to the classification of “Roof Mounted AC Package Units” manufactured for Indian Railways as per designs and layouts given by the Railway Design and Standards Organisation (RDSO).
The Authority for Advance Ruling had mentioned that the products shall be counted under Chapter 86.07 of the GST Tariff because they were manufactured only for Indian Railways and are not supplied in any other place.
The ruling also mentioned that it shall stay valid till it is declared void u/s 104(1) of the CGST Act.
The department specified that the applicant should initially reply to the SCN and then claim the appellate remedy available under the CGST Act if any adverse order was passed.
It was upheld by the department that the writ petition was premature and that the regulatory adjudication procedure must not have been bypassed.
The HC did not accept the objections of the department and stated that the Advance Ruling had neither been contested nor questioned before any forum and had thus reached finality. The Bench ruled that these rulings are obligatory on the authorities.
The Court noted that while parties are generally required to answer to SCNs and pursue statutory remedies, this particular case was different as the notice did not have any legal basis due to a binding Advance Ruling.
The Bench stated that forcing the applicant to go through adjudication proceedings, despite the established legal position, would be purposeless.
Exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court determined that this case warranted judicial intervention and, therefore, overturned the SCN on February 14, 2025.
The writ petition was permitted and disposed of along with the due applications, if any.
| Case Title | M/s. Amit Engineers V/S UOI |
| Case No. | CWP No. 3461 of 2025 |
| Counsel For Petitioner | Ms Ajay Jain & Vandana Thakur, Advocates. |
| Counsel For Respondent | Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Penal Counsel |
| HP High Court | Read Order |
