Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Commissioner of Uttarakhand State GST Uttarakhand & Ors. (Uttarakhand High Court)
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the Uttarakhand GST Act/CGST Act read with Rule 122, whereby a demand for differential tax at 10% was raised on spare parts manufactured during FY 2021–22. The proceedings originated from an audit conducted under Section 65 of the CGST Act, followed by a show cause notice dated 26.09.2025. The petitioner submitted a reply and was granted a personal hearing before the adjudication order was issued.
The petitioner’s primary contention was that its reply had not been properly considered by the Adjudicating Authority, and therefore the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. Reliance was placed on various judicial precedents to support the argument.
Upon examination, the Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority had specifically analyzed the classification issue, determining that the spare parts—meant for specific vehicle models—fell under HSN Code 8714 (Parts and Accessories of Vehicles of Headings 8711 to 8713). Based on this classification, the applicable tax rate was held to be 28%, whereas the petitioner had paid tax at 18%, leading to the differential demand.
The Court observed that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner argued that such an appeal would require a pre-deposit, and therefore the writ petition should be entertained. However, the Court held that the requirement of pre-deposit cannot be a valid ground to bypass the statutory appellate remedy.
