Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Nitin Enterprises
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that the respondent entrepreneur (Nitin Enterprises) must release 50% of the amount due to them as per the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 20, 2018. Upon furnishing a solvent surety for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the recovery of the remaining claimed refund amount by the respondent shall be stayed. The Court did not decide on the admission of the appeal itself at this stage, leaving that for a future hearing.
Facts
This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT's impugned judgment, dated March 20, 2018, was in appeal No. E/51330-51336, 56026-56031/2014-DB. The High Court was informed that the issue in the present appeal is also under consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue in that matter, relying on a Supreme Court order. The High Court was asked to decide whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, should be admitted for hearing, considering it involves issues similar to those pending in LPAOW No. 123/2011. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner (Commissioner of GST and Central Excise) relies on an interim order issued in LPAOW No. 123/2011, which was based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, indicating a favorable position for the revenue. Respondent's Contention: The respondent (Nitin Enterprises) is the beneficiary of the impugned CESTAT judgment. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage of the High Court proceedings, other than their entitlement to the refund as per the CESTAT order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 47 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU MCC No. 260/2018 c/w CEA No. 15/2018, IA No. 01/2018 Date of order: 19.11.2018
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise J&K vs. Nitin Enterprises.
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant (s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
:
MCC NO. 260/2018
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. 15/2018 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 Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue. Issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted to hearing. In the meantime, it is directed that subject to appellant releasing 50% of the amount due to them in
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.