Commissionet Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Shiva Industries, Kathua
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, Shiva Industries, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. Pending this determination, the Court directed that the impugned judgment dated August 31, 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 (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT's judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Additionally, the appellant must furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, only on the procedural step of admitting it for hearing and granting interim relief.
Facts
This matter involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against Shiva Industries, Kathua. The appeal concerns a judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The CESTAT's order appears to have been in favor of the respondent, Shiva Industries, regarding a refund claim. The High Court is considering whether to admit the appeal for hearing. The revenue had previously obtained an interim order in their favor in a related matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) based on a Supreme Court order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT's order dated August 31, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) contends that the issue is subject to consideration in a connected matter (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, which previously favored the revenue. The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in this portion of the judgment. The Court is to decide whether to admit the appeal based on these submissions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC 74/2019
Serial No. 35 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 74/2019 c/w CEA No.66/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 06.03.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
vs. Shiva Industries, Kathua \
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.74/2019:
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.66/2019: 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.
MCC 74/20
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.