Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K, Jammu. vs. Biostadt INDIA LTD.
Held
The Court directed the issuance of notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Mr. Anchit H. Sharma accepted notice on behalf of the respondent. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on May 13, 2019, along with connected matters. In the interim, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the CESTAT would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment and furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (petitioner) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed an impugned judgment on August 29, 2018, concerning several appeals filed by Biostadt India Ltd. (respondent). The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. The issue raised in the present appeal was stated to be the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue in this matter, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing, considering it raises issues already under consideration in connected matters and relies on Supreme Court precedents. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue in the present appeal is subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. They also referred to an interim order issued in their favour based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, suggesting the appeal has merit. Respondent's Arguments: Mr. Anchit H. Sharma accepted notice on behalf of the respondent. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent at this stage, beyond accepting notice.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as discussed in detail, but the context implies appeals related to GST/Central Excise.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC 124/2019
Serial No. 17 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 124/2019 c/w CEA No.94/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 01.04.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise vs. Biostadt India 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)
: Mr. Anchit H.Sharma, Advocate.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No MCC No.124/2019:
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.94/2019: 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.
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.