Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Biostadt INDIA Limited
Held
The Court decided to stay the impugned order dated March 14, 2018. The reasoning provided is that a similar issue is pending before the Court in CEA No. 77/2018, and a Coordinate Bench had already passed an order in that case. The Court directed that the appellant shall release only 50% of the amount due to the respondent. This release is conditional upon the respondent furnishing a solvent surety in the said amount, to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner, within a period of four weeks. The Court also allowed the application in MCC No. 354/2018, dispensing with the requirement of providing a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court has not expressly left any issue undecided, but the final merits of the appeal are yet to be determined.
Facts
This case involves two connected matters, MCC No. 354/2018 and CEA No. 87/2018, 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. 87/2018, the appellant seeks a similar order to one passed in a related case, CEA No. 77/2018. The impugned order, dated March 14, 2018, is under challenge. The Court has stayed the impugned order and directed the appellant to 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 the impugned order dated 14th of March, 2018, should be stayed pending the final disposal of the appeal, considering a similar issue is pending before the Court in CEA No. 77/2018. Arguments for the Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K): The appellant contended that a similar issue is pending before the Court in CEA No. 77/2018, and a Coordinate Bench had passed an order in that case on 04.12.2018. Therefore, a similar order should be passed in the present appeal. Arguments for the Respondent (Biostadt India Ltd.): The respondent did not explicitly record arguments in the provided text. However, the Court's interim order suggests that the respondent's interests were considered in granting partial relief and requiring surety.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Regular List Case No. 17 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 appellant
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.