Commissioner CGST And Cx Haldia Commissionerate vs. Touhid Mondal And Ors
Held
The Court allowed the review application in part by modifying the original order. The Court directed the respondents (Touhid Mondal) to file an application for waiver of the pre-deposit. The appellate authority was directed to consider this waiver application and examine whether the recovery of Rs. 18 lakhs by bank attachment was pertaining to the subject issue on which the dispute was raised. The appellate authority was to pass a reasoned order on the waiver application. If the authorities determined that the Rs. 18 lakhs recovery was relatable to another proceeding, the respondents were to be informed, and they would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The original direction to adjust the pre-deposit from the Rs. 18 lakhs was thus set aside and replaced with a process for seeking waiver.
Facts
The Commissioner, CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate (the Department) filed a review application seeking modification of an order dated 23.06.2023 passed in MAT 841 of 2023. The original order directed that the pre-deposit amount for filing an appeal by the respondent (Touhid Mondal) should be adjusted from Rs. 18 lakhs already recovered from the appellant via bank attachment on 27.01.2023. The Department contended that the Rs. 18 lakhs recovery was related to an order in original dated 19.11.2014, not the order in original dated 29.04.2022, which was the subject of the appeal. Therefore, the pre-deposit should not be adjusted from this amount.
Key Issues
1. Whether the pre-deposit for filing an appeal against the order in original dated 29.04.2022 should be adjusted from the amount of Rs. 18 lakhs recovered by way of bank attachment on 27.01.2023, as directed in the order dated 23.06.2023. Petitioner's (Department's) argument: The Department argued that the Rs. 18 lakhs recovered was relatable to an order in original dated 19.11.2014 and not to the order in original dated 29.04.2022, which formed the basis of the dispute for which the appeal was to be filed. Therefore, the pre-deposit should not be adjusted from this amount. Respondent's (Touhid Mondal's) argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent in response to the review application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
01
AN 24.11.2023 Ct. No. 01 RVW 195 of 2023 Commissioner, CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate Vs. Touhid Mondal & ors. in MAT 841 of 2023 (CAN 1 of 2023) (CAN 2 of 2023) Touhid Mondal Vs. Chief Commissioner of Customs & ors.
Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee Mr. Tapan Bhanja … for the applicant (CGST Authorities) Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee … for the respondent
There is a delay of 22 days in filing the review application. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay and the delay in f
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.