Calcom Cement INDIA Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors
Held
The Court held that the issue of limitation for the petitioner's application was covered by the High Court's previous decision in North East Hi-tech Vs. Union of India. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09/04/2021, which rejected the application on grounds of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) to consider the petitioner's application, submitted on 04/02/2021, on its merits and dispose of it with a reasoned order. The ratio decidendi is that for the period in question, limitation does not bar the consideration of such applications. The operative direction is to reconsider the application on merits and to refrain from initiating coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount involved until the reconsideration is complete.
Facts
The petitioner, Calcom Cement India Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09/04/2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner (Respondent No. 2). This order rejected the petitioner's application for a special rate on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner had submitted their application on 04/02/2021 to Respondent No. 3. The dispute concerns the applicability of limitation periods to the petitioner's application for a special rate under GST law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the application filed by the petitioner for a special rate, submitted on 04/02/2021, was barred by limitation, as held by the Principal Commissioner in the order dated 09/04/2021. Petitioner's Contention: Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that the matter is covered by a decision of this Court in North East Hi-tech Vs. Union of India [WP(c) 740/2022], dated 13/05/2022. He contended that in the relevant period, limitation was not applicable, and therefore, the petitioner's application should be considered on its merits. Revenue's Contention: Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the GST authorities, fairly submitted that in view of the decision in North East Hi-tech (supra), the petitioner's application has to be considered on its merits.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, beyond general reference to GST law and the impugned order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010076262021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2865/2021 CALCOM CEMENT INDIA LIMITED (CEMENT GRINDING UNIT) VILL. PIPALPUKHURI, P.O. LANKA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM 788931 A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, ANIL PLAZA-II, ABC, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR PERIWAL THE SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS) OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 2:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 3:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GUWAHATI II DIVISION GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001
Page No.# 2/3 4:CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001 5:THE AGM/BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA COMMERCIAL BRANCH GUWAHAT
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 Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.