Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Insecticides INDIA LTD.
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. The Court acknowledged that the issue raised is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and noted the Supreme Court's interim order in a related matter. Pending the admission of the appeal, the Court directed that the refund claimed by the respondent shall be stayed with regard to the remaining amount, subject to the appellant (revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur. This stay is further conditioned upon the furnishing of a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety.
Facts
The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.106/2019) against an order dated September 4, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT order concerned multiple appeals (E/53826/2014 to E/53830/2014, E/54917/2014, E/55606/2014 to E/56609/2014) filed by the respondent, Insecticides India Ltd. The respondent had claimed a refund. The High Court also considered MCC No. 139/2019, an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The core of the dispute involves the respondent's claim for refund and the revenue's challenge to it.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is to be admitted for hearing, considering its subject matter is under consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011? The petitioner argued that the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to the one pending in LPAOW No.123/2011. The petitioner also relied on an interim order dated January 13, 2012, passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28194/2010, which was issued in favour of the revenue. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. What interim directions should be issued pending the admission of the appeal? The petitioner sought a stay on the refund claimed by the respondent.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 29 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 139/2019 c/w CEA No.106/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 01.04.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise vs. Insecticides 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)
:
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No MCC No.139/2019:
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.106/2019: 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.
Pag
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.