Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Biostadt INDIA Limited

Held

The Court allowed the application in MCC No. 353/2018, dispensing with the requirement of a certified copy of the impugned order. In CEA No. 86/2018, the Court issued notice to the respondent, who waived it. The Court stayed the impugned order dated March 14, 2018. As an interim measure, the appellant was directed to release only 50% of the amount due to the respondent. This release was made conditional upon the respondent furnishing a solvent surety for the released amount, to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner, within four weeks. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but provided interim relief. The reasoning for the interim stay and conditional release appears to be based on the pendency of a similar issue in another case (CEA No. 77/2018) and the need to protect the interests of both parties during the pendency of the litigation.

Facts

This case involves two connected matters, MCC No. 353/2018 and CEA No. 86/2018, 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. 86/2018, the appellant sought a similar order to one passed in a related case, CEA No. 77/2018. The impugned order, dated March 14, 2018, was challenged. The Court issued a notice to the respondent, who waived it. Objections were to be filed by the next date. In the interim, the impugned order was stayed, with a direction that the appellant release only 50% of the amount due to the respondent, contingent upon the respondent furnishing a solvent surety for that amount within four weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether a similar order to that passed in CEA No. 77/2018 should be passed in the present appeal (CEA No. 86/2018), given the pendency of a similar issue before the Court? Petitioner's Argument (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K): The petitioner argued that a similar issue was pending before the Court in CEA No. 77/2018, and a Coordinate Bench had passed an order on December 4, 2018. They contended that a similar order should be passed in the instant appeal. No specific provisions or precedents were cited for this argument. Respondent's Argument (Biostadt India Ltd.): The respondent, through their counsel, waived notice and agreed to file objections. No specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the case or the impugned order.