Sheo Shakti Coke Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA And 8 Ors
Held
The Court allowed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, outlining their claim for excise duty exemption. The Principal Commissioner was directed to pass a reasoned order on the representation within two months 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 rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the claim is considered and a reasoned order is passed.
Facts
The petitioner, Sheo Shakti Coke Industries, an assessee under the Excise Act, 1944, approached the Gauhati High Court with a grievance that their claim for excise duty exemption under notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 had not been considered by the respondent authorities. The petitioner sought permission to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Commissioner of Excise, GST at Guwahati, requesting a reasoned order on their exemption claim. The respondents, including the Union of India and GST authorities, did not object to this proposal. The Court was informed that the petitioner's claim pertained to excise duty exemption.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Commissioner of Excise, GST at Guwahati, to pursue their claim for excise duty exemption under notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural right to have a claim considered). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their claim for excise duty exemption had not been considered and sought a direction for the Principal Commissioner to pass a reasoned order after considering a detailed representation. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent GST and the learned ASGI for the Union of India did not object to the petitioner's proposal to submit a representation and have the claim considered by the Principal Commissioner.
Sections Cited
notification No.20/2007-CE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010151162021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5044/2021 SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET, KOLKATA 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT VILL. MARANJANA, NEAR RANGIA IN THE DIST OF KAMRUP, ASSAM 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) BHANGAGARH G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI.
Page No.# 2/4 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (EARLIER KNOWN AS DEPUTY COMMISS
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.