Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020000832025 2025:GAU-NL:372 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/27/2025 M/S ITI LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE KULBHUSHAN SHUKLA, ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS 18, SEMATILLA COLONY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND 797112 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVENUE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001 3:GST COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001 4:CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON Page No.# 2/4 NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI 110001 5:GST NETWORK REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001 6:COMMISSIONER / JOINT SECRETARY IN THE BOARD CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI 110001 7:ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR CGST DIVISION 6TH FLOOR AGARWAL TOWER NST COLONY CITY TOWER AREA VIKHESHE ROAD DIMAPUR NAGALAND 79711 Advocate for the Petitioner : PUNEET AGRAWAL, IMTILA PONGEN,NUNGSANG AIER,I IMCHEN,KETAN JAIN Advocate for the Respondent : CGSC, BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR O R D E R 13.08.2025 (M.K. Kalita, J) 1. Heard Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Z. Page No.# 3/4 Kulnu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, M/s ITI LTD impugning the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Dimapur, CGST Division. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that with the insertion of sub-section (5) in section 16 of the CGST Act by way of the Finance Act, 2024, the grievance of the petitioner regarding availment of input tax credit is more or less resolved. However, it is submitted that the impugned order in respect of certain other demands had been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that if this Court deems it appropriate then the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned for deciding the claim of the petitioner afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to it in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also submitted that he is already in receipt of instructions from the Department and that the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act, including the new amendment introduced in Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. 5. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed Page No.# 4/4 by the respondent no. 7 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 7 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as amended, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant