Jud Cements LTD. And Anr. vs. The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that while ordinarily courts should not vary the terms of an order unless extenuating circumstances are cited, the application referred to a serious incident at the petitioner's manufacturing facility that month, which appeared to be a basis for their inconvenience. Accordingly, the Court granted the extension as a one-time measure, extending the time to pay the money due on March 15, 2022, until April 5, 2022. This extension was granted without interfering with the payments due thereafter as per the order of December 7, 2021. The Court made it clear that this indulgence was a one-time measure and should not be used as an instance for any further indulgence, and that it might not accede to any further similar requests. The writ petition was disposed of, and it was recorded that the original writ petition (WP(C) No. 344 of 2021) stood disposed of.

Facts

Jud Cements Ltd. & Anr. (the petitioner) sought an extension of time to pay an installment due on March 15, 2022, to April 4, 2022, under an order dated December 7, 2021, passed in WP(C) No. 344 of 2021. This order had directed the petitioner to pay a total of Rs. 43,49,50,071/- in 24 installments. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise (the respondent) objected, arguing that the petitioner's conduct did not inspire confidence and that granting the extension would allow the petitioner to stall payment of input tax credit. The respondent highlighted paragraphs 7 and 10 of the December 7, 2021 order, which stipulated that default in payment would make the balance amount automatically payable and that current GST dues must be paid without concession.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant the petitioner an extension of time to pay an installment due on March 15, 2022, to April 4, 2022, despite the terms of the December 7, 2021 order and the respondent's objections. This issue turns on the Court's discretion to vary its own orders and the principles governing such variations. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought leave to pay the amount due on March 15, 2022, by April 4, 2022, without seeking further concessions on other payments. They cited a serious incident at their manufacturing facility earlier that month as the reason for inconvenience in making the payment by the appointed date. Respondent's arguments: The respondent objected to the prayer, arguing that the petitioner's conduct did not inspire confidence and that they might be attempting to stall payment of input tax credit. They emphasized the terms of the December 7, 2021 order, particularly paragraphs 7 and 10, which allowed for immediate realization of the entire sum upon default and required continued payment of current GST dues without concession.