M/S Parle Biscuits PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Alwar
Held
The Court decided not to pass an interim order staying the demand of approximately Rs. 23,00,000/-. The reasoning provided is that the Court saw "no reason to pass any interim order staying such demand" in the facts of the case. However, the Court did provide a crucial observation: "it is observed that the recovery if any made, would be subject to final outcome of the appeal." This means that while the recovery process can continue, any amount recovered will be provisional and subject to refund if the appeal is decided in favor of the appellant. The stay application was disposed of with this observation. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in relation to the stay application itself.
Facts
M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court against an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Alwar Commissionerate (the respondent). The appellant also filed a stay application seeking an interim order to stay the demand. The total demand in question was approximately Rs. 23,00,000/-. The High Court had admitted the appeal on 09.01.2019 but did not pass any interim order on the stay application, leading to its listing on 03.05.2019 for appropriate orders. The Court was considering whether to grant a stay on the recovery of the disputed amount.
Key Issues
1. Whether an interim order should be passed to stay the recovery of the disputed GST demand of approximately Rs. 23,00,000/-, pending the final outcome of the appeal. The appellant argued for a stay on the recovery, implying that the demand might be disputed or that irreparable harm could be caused by recovery before the appeal is decided. The respondent, the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, did not present any specific arguments against the stay in the provided text, but the Court's decision suggests that the revenue's interest in recovery was considered. The Court's observation that any recovery would be subject to the final outcome of the appeal indicates a balancing of interests.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 03/05/2019 This Court vide order dated 09.01.2019 admitted the appeal but did not pass any interim order on stay application, therefore, stay application has been listed today for appropriate orders.
According to learned counsel for the appellant-applicant total demand would be approximately Rs. 23,00,000/-.
In the facts of the case, we see no reason to pass any interim order staying such demand. However, it is observed that the recovery if any made, would be subject to final outcome of the appeal.
Stay application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
Name of Mr. Anurag Kalawatia, learned counsel be shown in the Cause List as counsel for the respondent. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),Acting CJ MANOJ NARWANI /1
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 Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.