Commissionet Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Shiva Industries, Kathua
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending this, 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 (revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur, and furnishing 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 at this stage, only on the interim relief and the admission of the appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.67/2019) against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated August 31, 2018, concerning appeals E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The respondent is Shiva Industries, Kathua. The High Court was considering an application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The issue in the present case was stated to be subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue in a related matter based on a Supreme Court order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No.123/2011 and a prior interim order in favour of the revenue. (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner seeks admission of the appeal to hearing, highlighting that the issue is under consideration in a connected matter and that an interim order had previously favoured the revenue. The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010. Respondent's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent at this stage, as the court was issuing notice to show cause.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed in detail, but the context implies provisions related to appeals and interim relief under GST and excise laws.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC 75/2019
Serial No.22 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 75/2019 c/w CEA No.67/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 22.02.2019
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.75/2019:
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.67/2019: 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 75/20
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.