JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Kishore Kunal along with Sri. Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 5 and Sri. Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. Challenge has been raised to the orders dated 31.10.2023 and 30.01.2024 to the extent the assessing authority has refused to rectify the assessment order dated 31.10.2023 passed under Rule 142 (5) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is two-fold : (i) It has been submitted that the assessment order of the assessing authority dated 31.10.2023 to the extent it refuses to allow the petitioner to avail ITC Rs. 1, 82, 16, 688/- with the equivalent penalty, is in the teeth of the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 26.10.2023 in WRIT TAX No. 454 of 2020, M/S Harbir Singh Contractor and Another v. Union of India and 4 Others, Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:204392:DB. (ii) It has been submitted, the order of the assessing authority dated 30.01.2024 insofar as it refuses to entertain the correction application (in the assessment order dated 31.10.2023) to delete the amount of penalty and interest thereby refusing to give effect to the binding Circular No. 26/2017 issued by the CBIC dated 29.12.2017, is unsustainable. 4. The matter has been opposed on merits of the entitlement. Yet, it is not disputed to the revenue that the assessment order dated 31.10.2023 may not survive contrary to the law declared by this Court. It is also admitted to the revenue, the binding Circular of the CBIC ought to have been given effect to, subject to fulfillment of pre-conditions. At present, that aspect has not been examined. 5. In view of the above, to the extent the assessing authority has refused to apply its mind to the correction sought on the plea that it was not aware of the order of the High Court and/or binding Circular of the CBIC, the order may not be sustained. 6. The law declared by the Court being retrospective and it being applicable to the assessment period in question, the issue ought to have been examined with seriousness. 6. The law declared by the Court being retrospective and it being applicable to the assessment period in question, the issue ought to have been examined with seriousness. Similarly, merely because the assessing authority may not have been aware of the Circular of the CBIC when it passed the assessment order, it may not have refused to apply its mind to that Circular upon correction application being filed. Primarily, the decision of the Court being law declared and the Circular being the binding direction to apply the law, an order passed contrary to such law or direction to apply the law would remain an order that may have experienced an error apparent on the face of record. To that extent, we find the approach of the assessing authority to be erroneous. 7. In such facts and fair statement made by the learned counsel for the revenue, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. 8. The order dated 30.01.2024 is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the assessing authority to pass a fresh reasoned order dealing with the rectification application filed by the petitioner and keeping in mind the observations made above. Since in the earlier decision of the Court, time has been granted to the revenue and the GSTN to make compliance by 31.03.2024, let a fresh order be passed in terms of this order by 15.04.2024. 9. In the meantime, the disputed demand of tax and penalty arising from the two issues noted above may remain in abeyance. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.