Binding precedent must be considered in GST adjudication; failure to do so can justify quashing and remand.

An adjudication order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot stand where the authority failed to consider intervening binding Supreme Court decisions relevant to the show cause notice and dispute. The court noted that the notice had been issued while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, but the later adjudication did not account for the material precedent. The impugned order-in-original was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, with rival contentions left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order-in-original was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on the ground that the authority did not consider the intervening Supreme Court decisions relevant to the show cause notice issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The show cause notice had been issued under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when the dispute was pending before the Supreme Court. The impugned order was passed later, but the relevant Supreme Court decisions were not taken into account by the authority before adjudication. In these circumstances, the order could not stand and the matter required fresh examination after granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The impugned order-in-original was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief by securing quashing of the adjudication order and a fresh adjudication on remand, with all rival contentions left open.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order passed without considering material intervening binding precedent is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---