Partly allowed

M/S Shiv Shakti Mandir Sanchalan Samiti v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/4798/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a Writ Petition challenging a CESTAT direction mandating pre-deposit of 10% interest before hearing an appeal. The High Court modified the deposit requirement to 7.5% and set aside the prior dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Modification of pre-deposit from 10% to 7.5% and setting aside the dismissal of the appeal.

M/S Shiv Shakti Mandir Sanchalan Samiti Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4798/2018 & CM APPL. 18469/2018

¶4

M/S SHIV SHAKTI MANDIR SANCHALAN SAMITI

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. D.S. Chadha, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Saurav Agrawal with Ms. Aakriti Dawar, Advs. for R-2/IGL. Mr. Amit Bansal with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Advs. for R-3.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 03.07.2018

¶12

We have heard counsel for the parties.

¶13

The present petition challenges the direction of the CESTAT which required pre-deposit of 10% of the interest amount due which works out to over 14 lakhs. The record would disclose that at the stage of show-cause notice the principal liability (13.57 lakhs odd) was discharged, since the concerned agency i.e. Indraprastha Gas Limited paid the amount to the petitioner.

¶14

W.P.(C) 4798/2018

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

Having heard counsel for the parties and after taking into account all the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order’s direction should be modified. Accordingly, upon the petitioner depositing 7.5% of the amount claimed as demand towards interest liability [as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)] within 4 weeks from today, the CESTAT shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The impugned order of the CESTAT dated 13.07.2015 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the previous order requiring pre-deposit, is accordingly set aside. The CESTAT shall satisfy itself about the pre-deposit of the amount required by the Court and thereafter proceed to hear the appeal on merits. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

¶17

The petition is partly allowed in the above terms.

¶18

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶19

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶20

JULY 03, 2018 kks

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

W.P.(C) 4798/2018

M/S Shiv Shakti Mandir Sanchalan Samiti v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shiv Shakti Mandir Sanchalan Samiti v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & 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

D.T.C. Vs Dharamvir Singh

Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospita Vs Workers Thru M.K.R.H.Karamchar

K.Krishna Kurup Vs M/S M.M.T.C. Ltd.

Nayyar Manzil (Jamia Nagar) Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) and Anr. Vs NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Gajendra Kumar Jha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex.Const.Krishan Kumar Vs UOI & Ors.

Power Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officor

All India Bank Officers Association Vs UOI & Anr.

R. L. Traders Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 47(1)

Ans Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi

Allied Integrated Society (Regd.) and Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Anuj Electricals Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Windlass Online Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) Igi & Ors.

Shiv Shakti Trading Company Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Anr.