HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2875/2021 M/S Lupin Ltd. EPIP Kartholi SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate v/s Union of India & Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 19.03.2025 1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the petitioner by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an Office Memorandum bearing F. No. 15/1/2020-GSTSS dated 26.07.2021 issued by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-I) as also an Office Memorandum bearing F. No. 116/19/2020-CX-3 dated 05.08.2021 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-II). 2. The office memorandum(s) are challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the same have been issued in violation of the judgment dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in OWP No. 1458/2018 titled Lupin Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of judgment dated 24.09.2020 (supra), this Court not only quashed the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by Respondent No. 3 but also Sr. No. 05 2 WP (C) No. 2875/2021 remanded the matter back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench, the Respondent No. 3 did not conduct any proceeding nor the petitioner was ever put on notice of such proceedings. 5. Mr. Raichandani would further submit that the Respondent No. 1 & Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned memorandum(s) straightaway and directed recoveries from the petitioner without passing any reasoned order in compliance with the judgment passed by the Division Bench. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned memorandum(s) passed by Respondent No. 1 & Respondent No. 3 and the recoveries initiated, fly in the face of judgment dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. In terms of judgment (supra), the Respondent No. 3 was under a legal obligation to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 was also required to pass a reasoned order so that the petitioner could know the basis of acceptance or otherwise of his claim. This however, has not happened in this case. 8. Without going into the merits of the controversy or expressing any opinion thereupon, we allow this petition and quash the impugned office memorandum(s) dated 26.07.2021 and 3 WP (C) No. 2875/2021 05.08.2021, respectively, including the recovery proceedings, if any, initiated by the respondents. 9. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to pass a reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in compliance with our judgment dated 24.09.2020 passed in OWP No. 1458/2018. (Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 19.03.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No Manan Mahajan 2025.03.19 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document