Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S Theos Metals Trade Private Limited

Held

The Court acknowledged the revenue's principal contention that the impugned interim order was passed on incorrect pleadings and submissions, and that the matter is covered by the Apex Court's decision in 'State of Karnataka Vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd.'. The respondent argued that the order directing a 20% deposit was not erroneous. The Court noted that if the revenue's assertion about incorrect facts being placed before the Single Judge was true, it would be appropriate for the revenue to move the Hon'ble Single Judge for an early disposal of the writ petition. The Court then requested the Hon'ble Single Judge to consider the revenue's application for vacating the stay. The Writ Appeal was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

This case involves a Writ Appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and other revenue authorities against an interim order dated 02/11/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP No. 22682/2023. The respondent is M/s Theos Metals Trade Private Limited. The revenue's primary contention is that the interim order was based on incorrect pleadings and submissions made by the petitioner. They argue that the matter is covered by a Supreme Court decision in 'State of Karnataka Vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd.'. The respondent, however, contends that the Single Judge's order, which directed the deposit of 20% of the demand, is not erroneous. The appeal is primarily based on the assertion that the correct facts were not presented to the Single Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order dated 02/11/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP No. 22682/2023 is vitiated by incorrect pleadings and submissions made by the petitioner, thereby warranting setting aside of the order? (Question of fact and law) Arguments for the Appellants (Revenue): The appellants argued that the impugned interim order was passed based on incorrect pleadings and submissions by the petitioner. They contended that the issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in 'State of Karnataka Vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd.'. They further submitted that the correct facts were not placed before the Hon'ble Single Judge and requested that the Hon'ble Single Judge be requested to consider their application for vacating the stay. Arguments for the Respondent (Petitioner): The respondent argued that there is no error in the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, as the assessee was directed to deposit only 20% of the demand. They did not present any arguments regarding the Supreme Court precedent or the alleged incorrect facts beyond stating the order was not erroneous.