Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Saraswati Agro Chemical INDIA PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. The Court also granted an interim direction. The operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 14, 2018, was stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant (Revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. This stay is further conditional upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court listed the matter for further hearing along with connected matters on February 20, 2019. The issue of admitting the appeal for hearing was not finally decided, but notice was issued.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Revenue) filed appeals against an order dated March 14, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed several orders in appeals concerning the respondent, Saraswati Agro Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner). The Revenue submitted that the issue in the present case is subject to consideration in another appeal, LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order was previously issued in favour of the Revenue in this matter, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court was considering whether to admit the Revenue's appeal for hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be admitted for hearing, considering the pendency of a related matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) and a previous interim order in favour of the Revenue based on a Supreme Court order. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Revenue): Argued that the issue is sub-judice in LPAOW No.123/2011 and that an interim order was previously granted in their favour by relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010. Respondent (Petitioner): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No.17 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 402/2018, CEA No. 134/2018, 01/2018. Date of order: 31.12.2018
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
vs. Saraswati Agro Chemical India Pvt. Ltd \
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
:
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No MCC No.402/2018:
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, providing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No.134/2018: It is submitted that the issue raised in the present case is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. In this appeal placing reliance on order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue.
Issue notice to the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.