Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K, Jammu. vs. V M C O Alloys
Held
The Court allowed MCC No. 145/2019, dispensing with the requirement of providing a certified copy of the impugned order. In CEA No. 110/2019, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing, acknowledging that the issue was pending consideration in another matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011) and that an interim order had been granted in favour of the revenue. Crucially, the Court directed that the stay on the remaining amount claimed as refund by the respondent would be subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, within four weeks of furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal at this stage, focusing on procedural aspects and interim relief.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (the petitioner/appellant) filed MCC No. 145/2019 and CEA No. 110/2019 before the High Court. MCC No. 145/2019 was an application to dispense with the certified copy of an impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 110/2019 concerned an issue that was stated to be the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The revenue had obtained an interim order in its favour in that matter, relying on a Supreme Court order. The High Court issued notice to the respondent in CEA No. 110/2019 and directed that, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of a CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, the remaining amount claimed as refund by the respondent would be stayed. The CESTAT judgment pertained to appeal numbers E/53637/2015 to E/53640/2015.
Key Issues
1. Whether the certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 145/2019 should be dispensed with. The petitioner sought this relief. 2. Whether the appeal in CEA No. 110/2019 should be admitted to hearing, given its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and an interim order in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The petitioner sought admission of the appeal. 3. Whether the refund claimed by the respondent in CEA No. 110/2019 should be stayed pending further consideration. The petitioner sought a stay on the remaining amount of the refund.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 33 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 145/2019 c/w CEA No.110/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 01.04.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise vs. V M C O Alloys. \
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.145/2019:
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.110/2019: 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 of
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.