Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Biostadt INDIA Limited
Held
The Court decided to grant a stay on the impugned order dated March 14, 2018, in CEA No. 81/2018. 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 for the said 50% amount, to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner, within four weeks. The reasoning for this interim order appears to be based on the pendency of a similar matter (CEA No. 77/2018) before a Coordinate Bench and the need to protect the interests of both parties during the pendency of the appeal. The Court also allowed an application to dispense with the requirement of providing a certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 349/2018. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made, as this appears to be an interim order.
Facts
This case involves two connected matters, MCC No. 349/2018 and CEA No. 81/2018, 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. 81/2018, the appellant seeks a similar order to one passed in a similar pending case, CEA No. 77/2018. The impugned order in CEA No. 81/2018 is dated March 14, 2018. The Court has granted a stay on the impugned order, with a condition that the appellant shall release only 50% of the amount due to the respondent, provided the respondent furnishes a solvent surety for that amount.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should pass a similar order in CEA No. 81/2018 as was passed in a similar pending case, CEA No. 77/2018, concerning the stay of an impugned order dated March 14, 2018, and the release of funds. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the principles of equity and procedural fairness in tax litigation). Contentions: Petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K): Argued that a similar issue is pending before the Court in CEA No. 77/2018, where a Coordinate Bench passed a specific order on December 4, 2018. They requested a similar order be passed in the instant appeal. Respondent (Biostadt India Ltd.): Did not record any specific arguments in the provided text regarding the issues, but notice was waived by their counsel.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Regular List Case No. 12 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.