Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd., to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned judgment dated March 23, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, to the respondent entrepreneur upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed. The appeal was ordered to be listed along with CEA 09/2018. The Court did not make a final determination on the admission of the appeal or the merits of the case at this stage.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K (appellant) filed an appeal (CEA No. 41/2018) against an order dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal concerns multiple appeal numbers before the CESTAT, relating to the tax period(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be covered by the CESTAT's judgment. The dispute involves an amount due in terms of the CESTAT's impugned judgment. The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The appellant also placed reliance on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued and interim directions were granted. The High Court issued notice to the respondent, Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd., to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant should be admitted to hearing, as per the provisions of the relevant tax statutes governing appeals to the High Court. The appellant argued that the present appeal should be admitted to hearing, relying on an earlier order passed by this Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions were granted. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Court had to decide whether to admit the appeal for hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC No. 296/2018 Regular List Serial No. 23
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU c/w CEA No. 41/2018, IA No. 2018
Date of order:-27.11.2018 Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K
Vs. Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE Appearing counsel:
For Appellant/Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate For Respondent (s) :
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, filing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No. 41/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on an earlier order passed by this Court in CEA No. 09/2018, in which notice has been issued to show cause as to why the
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.