Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Biostadt INDIA Limited
Held
The Court granted the application for dispensing with the requirement of a certified copy of the impugned order. For CEA No. 83/2018, the Court noted that a similar issue was pending before a Coordinate Bench. Consequently, the Court stayed the impugned order dated 14th of March, 2018. The appellant was directed to release 50% of the amount due to the respondent, provided the respondent furnished a solvent surety for that amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but granted interim relief based on the pendency of a similar matter. The specific provision under challenge or the substantive legal questions were not elaborated upon in the provided text.
Facts
This case involves two connected matters: MCC No. 350/2018 and CEA No. 83/2018, before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu. The appellant is the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, and the respondent is Biostadt India Ltd. In CEA No. 83/2018, the appellant states that a similar issue is pending before the Court in CEA No. 77/2018, where a Coordinate Bench had passed an order on 04.12.2018. The appellant sought a similar order in the instant appeal. The Court issued notice, which was waived by the respondent. Objections were to be filed by the next date. The impugned order dated 14th of March, 2018, was stayed, with the condition that the appellant would release only 50% of the amount due to the respondent, subject to furnishing a solvent surety for that amount within four weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 14th of March, 2018, should be stayed pending the decision in a similar matter before the Court? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the principle of parity). Arguments: Petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K): Argued that a similar issue is pending before a Coordinate Bench in CEA No. 77/2018, and therefore, a similar order should be passed in the present appeal. Relied on the principle of parity with the order passed in CEA No. 77/2018. Respondent (Biostadt India Ltd.): Did not record any specific arguments in the provided text. However, by waiving notice and not filing objections by the next date, it implicitly accepted the Court's interim directions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Regular List Case No. 13 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU c/w Date of Order: 17.12.2018
Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Vs Biostadt India Ltd. Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma, Judge
For the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. For the respondent(s) :
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Requirement of providing a certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that a similar issue is pending before the Court in CEA No. 77/2018, in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.12.2018 has passed the order. It is submitted that a similar order be passed in the instant appeal as well.
Notice. Mr. Anchit Sharma, Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent. Objections be filed by or before the next date.
In the meantime, order impugned dated 14th of March, 2018 is stayed. The appellan
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.