Dismissed

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Naresh Kumar Gupta., v. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2019CA/201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected an application seeking a stay on orders under Case No. 201 of 2019. The Court held there was no substantive challenge to the orders and that granting relief would amount to overriding statutory rules. The main petition was remanded for final disposal in January 2020.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application rejected; no order as to costs; main Petition listed for final disposal.

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Naresh… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

 ca201-19dt. 25-11-19

¶3

 Santosh

¶4

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2019
IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.204 OF 2019

¶7

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd.….. Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Union of India & ors..…..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Gajendra Jain with Ms. Vidya Naik, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶11

Ms. Asha Dessai, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for
the Respondents.

¶12

Coram : M.S. Sonak &
 Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
 Date : 25th November, 2019.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard Mr. Gajendra Jain for the Applicant and Ms. Asha
Desai for the Respondents.

¶15

2.By this Civil Application, the Applicant seeks a stay on the
operation of the Order-in-Original dated 10th January, 2019 and the
Order-in-Original dated 19th August, 2019, made by the Assistant
Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (Respondent
No.3).

¶16

3.In the first place, we find that there is no substantive
challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 19th August, 2019. In the

¶17

2 ca201-19dt. 25-11-19

¶18

absence of any substantive challenge, there is no question of
entertaining the application, simply seeking an interim relief. To
overcome the aforesaid position, Mr. Jain points out that the Order-
in-Original dated 19th August, 2019 only seeks to implement the
Order-in-Original dated 10th January, 2019, which is challenged in
the main Petition.

¶19

4.In the main Petition, Rule has already been issued and
liberty was granted to the Petitioner to apply for interim relief, if
occasion so arises. The challenge in the main Petition is to Rule
89(5) of the CGST Rules, which restricts refund of input services.
Grant of any interim relief, as prayed for, would virtually amount to
directing the Respondents to act contrary to the provisions of Rule
89(5) of the CGST Rules. Normally, unless a case, much stronger
than a mere prima facie case is made out, there is no question of
grant of stay to any legislation or the Rules, having statutory force.

¶20

5.Besides, we find that the relief, which the Applicant seeks, is
virtually requiring the Respondents to refund certain amount, already
retained by them. In this sense, the Applicants are seeking a
mandatory relief, though the relief is styled as seeking stay on the
impugned orders. There is really no case made out for grant of such a
relief in mandatory terms, at the interim stage.

¶21

6. Accordingly, this Civil Application is rejected. There shall

¶22

¶23

 ca201-19dt. 25-11-19

¶24

be no order as to costs.

¶25

7.In any case, there was a direction for taking up the main
Petition for final disposal on 10th July, 2019. In view of the aforesaid,
we place the main Petition for final disposal in the week commencing
from 13th January, 2020.

¶26

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. M.S. Sonak, J.

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Naresh Kumar Gupta., v. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Naresh Kumar Gupta., v. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajyot Ramchandra Kandolkar. Vs State of Goa Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Anant Y. Lotlikar., Vs Kadamaba Transport Corporation Ltd., Thr. Its General Manager.

Alisha Govekar and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Sunshine Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Sadanand P. Verenkar., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Govt. of Goa and Anr.

Martin Alphonso., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 2 Ors.

Ministry of Home Affairs, by Its Under Secretary., Vs Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira and 5 Ors.