Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. B.R.Agrotech LTD.
Held
The Court issued notice to the respondent in CEA No. 134/2019, directing them to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. The appeal was listed for May 13, 2019, along with connected matters. In the interim, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 6, 2018, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to two conditions. Firstly, the appellant (revenue) must release 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Secondly, upon furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the stay would be effective for the remaining amount. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage.
Facts
The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated September 6, 2018, concerning appeals E/52505/2015 to E/52511/2015. The respondent is B. R. Agrotech Ltd. The High Court was considering MCC No. 178/2019, which was a miscellaneous application, and CEA No. 134/2019, the main appeal. The miscellaneous application was allowed, dispensing with the need for a certified copy of the impugned order. For the main appeal, it was submitted that the issue was pending consideration in another matter, LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. The petitioner sought admission of the appeal. The respondent's arguments are not recorded. 2. Whether the impugned CESTAT order dated September 6, 2018, should be stayed, particularly concerning the refund claimed by the respondent. The petitioner sought a stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded. The respondent's arguments regarding the stay are not recorded.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 29 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 178/2019 c/w CEA No.134/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 15.04.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise vs. B. R. Agrotech Ltd. \
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
: i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No MCC No.178/2019:
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, providing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No.134/2019: It is submitted that the issue raised in the present case is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. In this appeal placing reliance on order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue.
Page 2 o
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 High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.