Commissioner Of CGST, Panchkula vs. M/S Nestle INDIA Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula (appellant) filed an appeal against an order concerning M/s. Nestle India Limited (respondent). The appeal was filed with a delay of 52 days, which was condoned by the Court. The judgment states that a detailed order would be provided in a connected case, STA-26-2019, also titled Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula vs. Nestle India Limited. No specific tax periods, amounts in dispute, or the nature of the order under challenge are detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the appeal and the condonation of delay.
Held
The Court, in this excerpt, has only addressed a preliminary procedural matter: the condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. The application for condonation of delay of 52 days was allowed. The Court indicated that the detailed order would be provided in a connected case, STA-26-2019. Therefore, no substantive findings on the merits of the case, the reasoning behind any such findings, or the ratio decidendi for the main dispute are present in this excerpt. No operative directions or relief granted concerning the core GST matter are recorded here.
Key Issues
The provided excerpt does not contain the specific issues that the Court had to decide, nor does it record the arguments presented by either the appellant (Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula) or the respondent (M/s. Nestle India Limited). Therefore, no questions of law or mixed law and fact can be framed, and no contentions or reliance on authorities, circulars, or precedents can be identified from this text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STA-27-2019 (O&M) Date of decision:15.02.2023 Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula ....Appellant V/s. M/s. Nestle India Limited ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Senior Standing Counsel-CBIC with Mr. Deepesh Kakkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral). CM-23623-CII-2019
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 52 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. STA-27-2019 (O&M) For detailed order, kindly see order of even date passed in STA-26-2019 titled as Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula vs. Nestle India Limited. Pending application (if any) stands dismissed. (RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 15.02.2023
Divyanshi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2023.02.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.