Shri Balaji Coke Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA And 8 Ors
Held
The Court allowed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, outlining their claim for exemption from excise duty and refund of excise duty. The Principal Commissioner was directed to pass a reasoned order on this representation within two months from the date of its receipt. If the Commissioner found the petitioner entitled to the exemption, consequential orders were to be passed. Conversely, if the petitioner was not found entitled, a copy of the reasoned order was to be communicated to them. The Court did not decide on the merits of the exemption claim itself but facilitated its consideration by the appropriate authority. The issue of refund was contingent on the reasoned order.
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Balaji Coke Industries, is an assessee under the Excise Act, 1944. They had claimed an exemption from excise duty under notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007. However, this claim had not yet been considered by the respondent authorities. The petitioner approached the High Court with this limited grievance, seeking a decision on their exemption claim. The respondents, including the Union of India and GST authorities, were represented. The matter was heard by the High Court on 30.09.2021.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an exemption from excise duty under notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the claimed exemption and sought a direction for the respondent authority to consider their claim. They proposed to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, requesting a reasoned order on their exemption claim and potential refund of excise duty. Revenue/State's contention: The learned ASGI (for respondents No. 1 and 2) did not object to the petitioner's proposal to submit a representation and have their claim considered by the Principal Commissioner. The learned counsel for the respondent GST also agreed with this course of action.
Sections Cited
notification No.20/2007-CE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010151622021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5054/2021 SHRI BALAJI COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLAB ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET, 5-F ELECTRONIC CENTER, KOLKATA 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT AZARA, HATKHUWAPA, RAMCHANI IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI SANJAY JAIN VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2:THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPTT. OF REVENUE) NEW DELHI 3:THE COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX) BHANGAGARH G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI. 4:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX) BHANGAGRH G.S. ROAD
Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (EARLIER KNOWN A
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.