Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Allahabad vs. Yadvendra Kumar Roy Partner Of Kaka Carpets
Held
The Court held that the questions of law raised in the appeal, particularly concerning the valuation of goods, are cognizable before the Apex Court. The Court noted that the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant confirmed that the matter also involved classification issues. Consequently, the High Court found the appeal to be not maintainable before it. The Court explicitly stated that it is open to the appellant to approach the Apex Court. No specific reasoning beyond the nature of the issues being within the Apex Court's jurisdiction was provided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
Facts
The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Allahabad (Appellant) filed a defective appeal before the High Court against Yadvendra Kumar Roy, Partner of Kaka Carpets (Respondent). The appeal concerned issues related to valuation and classification of goods. The Court granted time to the department to seek instructions regarding the maintainability of the appeal. After hearing both parties and examining the matter, the Court noted that the questions of law pertained to valuation, which are cognizable before the Apex Court. A supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant further clarified that the matter also involved classification.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal involving questions of law relating to the valuation of goods under the relevant provisions of the GST/Central Excise law? Petitioner (Appellant) Argument: The Appellant, Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the case or the specific provisions of law. Their primary focus, as indicated by the Court's observation, was on the nature of the questions of law, which they implicitly believed were within the High Court's purview or that the High Court should consider them. The supplementary affidavit suggests an attempt to provide further context for the appeal. Respondent (Revenue/State) Argument: The Respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The judgment states that the Court heard learned counsel for the parties, implying the Respondent's counsel was present, but no specific contentions were made on their behalf in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 35 Case :- CUSTOM APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 56 of 2017 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Allahabad Respondent :- Yadvendra Kumar Roy Partner Of Kaka Carpets Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar,R C Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Nishant Mishra Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Learned counsel for the department was granted time to seek instructions with regard to maintainability of the appeal before this court.
We heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the matter. It is quite clear from the contents of questions of law so far as they relates the valuation and therefore they would become cognizable before the Apex Court. It is open to the appellant to approach the Apex Court.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant also makes it clear that the matter relates to the classification as well.
The instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Certified copy of the order may be returned to Sri R.C. Shukla learned counsel for the appellant.
Order Date :- 6.5.2019 rk
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.