Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1198

The order passed in contravention of the stay order of High Court of Rajasthan is not sustainable.
Case:- GOLDEN TABACCO LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C.EX, (ADJ), NEW DELHI
Citation: - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 385(Tri-Delhi)
Issue: - The order passed in contravention of the stay order of High Court of Rajasthan is not sustainable.
Brief fact: -The appeals are preferred against the order-in-original confirming duty demand of Rs. 30,85,63,593/- with interest against the appellant M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. and M/s. Chinar Cigarettes Pvt. Ltd. besides imposing penalty on various persons including the appellant. These matters were originally listed for argument on stay applications moved by the appellants seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of the duty demand and penalty. During the course of arguments, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the order has been passed in contravention of the stay order dated 1-11-2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, as such is not sustainable in law. Since the arguments advanced by the Id. Counsel for the appellant is purely legal with the consent of the parties the tribunal have proceeded to hear the appeals itself after waiving the condition of pre-deposit of demand, interest and penalty. During adjudication proceedings the appellant requested for supply of copies of all the relied upon documents in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Commissioner (Adjudication) however failed to supply the complete set of relied upon documents. Accordingly, a writ petition seeking direction to the Department to supply copies of relied upon documents to the appellant was filed.
Appellant ContentionThe Appellant submitted that despite the stay order the Commissioner (Adjudication) instead of supplying the documents demanded by the appellant proceeded to pass adjudication order and signed the same on 7th November without mentioning the year.
Ld. Counsel submits that this order being in contravention of the stay order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. It has further submitted by Appellant that the High Court of Rajasthan ultimately allowed the writ petition vide order dated 30-1-2006 directing the department to supply copies of all the relied upon documents. It is further submitted that from the above it is apparent that the Commissioner (Adjudication) has violated the stay order passed by the impugned order without supplying copies of relied upon documents to the appellant and this itself amounts to violation of principle of natural justice because non supply of documents have prevented the appellant to properly defend the show cause notice. Thus, Id. Counsel has urged that the appeal be accepted and matter be remanded back for de novo adjudication after complying with the direction of the High Court and also permitting the appellant to cross-examine the relevant witnesses on whose statement the department wants to rely upon.
Respondent Contention:-  The Id. AR on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and he has referred to the affidavit of Commissioner (Adjudication), Delhi and submitted that adjudication order was passed by the then Commissioner (Adjudication) on 30-10-2001 when he approved the fair copy of the order in the administrative file. It is submitted that the order came into operation on 30-10-2001 and signing of the order by the Commissioner (Adjudication) on 7-11-2001 was only a formality. Thus Id. AR submitted that the impugned order was passed much before the said order. It is also contended that the final order of the High Court dated 30-1- 2006 has not given direction to the department to supply the copies of relied upon documents and it has no bearing on the validity of the impugned order because it was passed much before the final order. More so, because of the fact that the High Court while deciding the writ petition did not set aside the impugned order. The Id. AR has thus, pressed for the dismissal of all the appeals.
Reasoning of Judgment: In order to be executable order, it necessarily has to be signed by the authority concerned. Admittedly impugned order was signed on 7-11-2001 during the operation of stay order. Therefore, it came into existence on 7-11-2001 in violation of the stay orders, which was within the knowledge of the Commissioner (Adjudication), therefore, Tribunal do not find any merit in the contention of the Id. AR for the department.
It is evident that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication) in violation of the undertaking given to the Rajasthan High Court on 7-11-2001 by  Advocate for the department. Since the order has been passed in violation of the undertaking, Tribunal find it difficult to sustain the same otherwise also in view of the final order of the High Court on the writ petition of the appellant directing the department to supply copies of the relied upon documents, it is apparent that the appellant was not supplied with relevant relied upon documents by the adjudicating authority. This obviously has resulted in failure of justice because non supply of documents has prevented the appellant from defending the show cause notice properly. On this count also, the order-in-appeal cannot be sustained. Thus, Tribunal accept the appeals and remand the matters back to the Commissioner (Adjudication) for de novo adjudication and decide afresh with the direction that the Commissioner (Adjudication) shall supply the copies of documents to the appellant in terms of the direction of the Rajasthan High Court given in the writ petition vide order dated 30-1-2006. The Commissioner (Adjudication) shall also afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to cross-examine the relevant witnesses subject to their availability.
Decision: -Appeal disposed off
Comment:- This is very good decision wherein the Commissioner has passed the order without considering the direction of Court. The contention of the Commissioner was that he has passed the order before the final order by Court. The only thing was that he has singed the order after the order of High Court. When he was knowing the order of High Court on the date of singing of order. Then he should have complied with directions of High Court. This is the way of functioning of departmental officers. 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com