Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise,J And K Jammu. vs. J And K Cement Corporation,Kathua J And K .
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent in CEA No. 65/2019, asking them to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. The Court also granted an interim direction: the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant (petitioner) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. This stay would be effective upon the appellant furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the admission of the appeal itself, nor did it decide the merits of the refund claim.
Facts
The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No. 65/2019) against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated September 4, 2018, concerning appeals E/52523/2014 to E/52529/2014. The CESTAT order appears to have directed the release of certain amounts to the respondent, J&K Cement Corporation. The petitioner sought to stay the operation of the CESTAT judgment regarding the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. The High Court also dealt with MCC No. 73/2019, an application to dispense with the certified copy of an order, which was allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner (CEA No. 65/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering it raises issues subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and relies on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's interim order and the pendency of a related matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011) to argue for the admission of the appeal and a stay on the CESTAT order. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage, other than the fact that they are the entrepreneur claiming refunds.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC 73/2019
Serial No. 34 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 73/2019 c/w CEA No.65/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 06.03.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
vs. J&K Cement Corporation, Kathua, J&K. \
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, 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.73/2019:
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.65/2019: 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.