Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K, Jammu. vs. United Phosphorous LTD.
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, United Phosphorous Limited, for July 2, 2019, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, the Court directed that the appellant (Commissioner) must release 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT order dated August 30, 2018. This release is conditional upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing the surety. Upon fulfillment of this condition, the payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself at this stage, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of admission and interim relief.
Facts
This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jammu, against United Phosphorous Limited. The appeal concerns a judgment order dated August 30, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a series of appeal numbers. The High Court was considering an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. The appellant (Commissioner) relied on an earlier order of the High Court in a similar matter where notice had been issued. The Court was asked to decide whether the appeal should be admitted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jammu, against the order of the CESTAT should be admitted for hearing. The petitioner (Commissioner) argued that the High Court had previously issued notice in a similar case, indicating a prima facie case for admission. They sought to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. The respondent (United Phosphorous Limited) did not record any specific arguments in the provided text, but their participation as the respondent implies they would likely contest the admission of the appeal or the merits of the case. The Court's direction to release 50% of the amount due, subject to furnishing surety, suggests a consideration of the financial implications pending the appeal's admission.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Reg. List Item No. 29 c/w
CEA No. 123/2019
IA No. 1/2019
Date of order: 08.04.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise J&K Jammu. Vs. United Phosphorous Limited.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jag Paul Singh, Advocate.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, filling of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No. 123/2019 & IA No. 1/2019 Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on an earlier order passed by this Court in CEA No. 09.2018, in which notice has been issued to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted and directions have also been issued. Issue notice to the respondents for 02.07.2019 to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted. In the meantime, it
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.