Acc Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jabalpur

CEAC/28/2019HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01046146201909 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA2 pages

For Petitioner: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. U.A. Rana, Mr. Himanshu Mehta, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate. 13

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, ACC Limited, filed three appeals (CEAC 28/2019, CEAC 11/2023, and CEAC 12/2023) before the Delhi High Court. The appeals were filed against orders passed by various GST and Central Excise authorities, including the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jabalpur; Principal Commissioner Central Tax and Central Excise; and Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur. The specific tax periods and the amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that these matters were brought before the Delhi High Court for adjudication.

Held

The Court held that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [(2022) 9 SCC 1], the appeals filed before the Delhi High Court were not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the principle that such matters should be adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to withdraw the instant appeals. The operative direction was to allow the appellant to re-file the appeals before the appropriate High Court within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeals filed before the Delhi High Court are maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [(2022) 9 SCC 1]? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its senior counsel, submitted that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Ltd., these appeals would have to be withdrawn to be re-filed before the jurisdictional High Courts. The petitioner relied on the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~12 to 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CEAC 28/2019 & CM APPL. 50936/2019 (Interim Relief)

ACC LIMITED

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. U.A. Rana, Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, JABALPUR

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate. 13 + CEAC 11/2023 & CM APPL. 47327/2023 (Interim Relief)

ACC LIMITED

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. U.A. Rana, Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Advs.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate. 14 + CEAC 12/2023 & CM APPL. 47330/2023 (Interim Relief)

ACC LIMITED

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. U.A. Rana, Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER,CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown

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.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.