M/S Shyam Ferro Alloys LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax ,CGST & Central Excise Bolpu
Held
The Court noted the submission by the appellant's counsel that the client is not interested in proceeding with the matter and that written instructions to this effect were filed. Consequently, the prayers contained in the application G.A. No. 1069 of 2020 were allowed. The appeal being CEXA No. 70 of 2018, along with the connected applications, was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not decide any substantive issues related to GST law or the merits of the case.
Facts
The appellant, M/s. Shyam Ferro Alloys Ltd., filed an appeal (CEXA No. 70 of 2018) before the Calcutta High Court against an order or action by the Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Central Excise, Bolpur & Ors. The appeal was filed along with connected applications, including G.A. No. 1 of 2018 and G.A. No. 2 of 2020. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the appeal is not detailed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellant wishes to proceed with the appeal (CEXA No. 70 of 2018) and its connected applications. The appellant's counsel, on instruction from the client, submitted that the appellant is not interested in proceeding with the matter. The revenue or State did not present any arguments as the appellant indicated their intention to withdraw.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ORDER SHEET CEXA No. 70 of 2018 I.A. No: G.A. No.1 of 2018 (Old No: G.A. No. 1457 of 2018) I.A. No: G.A. No.2 of 2020 (Old No: G.A. No. 1069 of 2020) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/s. Shyam Ferro Alloys Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Central Excise, Bolpur & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA Date : 16th September, 2020. For Appellant : Mr. Suryaneel Das with Mr. Sunny Nundy, Advs. For Respondents : Mr. Kaushik Kanti Maity with Ms. Aishwarya Rajashree, Advs. On instruction from the client, Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/applicant, submits that his client is not interested to proceed with the matter. Written insturctions, filed in Court today, be kept with the record. Prayers contained in the application being G.A. No. 1069 of 2020 stand allowed.
2 Appeal being CEXA No. 70 of 2018 along with the connected application being IA No: GA/1/2018(Old No:GA/1457/2018) and IA are dismissed as withdrawn.
(SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.) (KAUSIK CHANDA, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.]
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.