Disposed

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Th Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India Th Secretary Deptt of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Others

J&K HC9 Sept 2021WP(C)/1843/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's applications for special rate valuation expeditiously within one month without insisting on the limitation period for filing, relying on a Gauhati High Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider applications for special rate without insisting on filing time within one month.

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Th Sanjay Sharma Vs Union of… — Customs and Excise | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 52

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CJ Court

¶4

Case: WP(C) No. 1843 of 2021

¶5

Crystal Crop Protection Limited

¶6

…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

¶7

Through: Sh. Amrinder Singh, Advocate with Sh. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate. Sh. J. A. Hamal, Advocate.

¶8

V/s

¶9

Union of India and others

¶10

…. Respondent(s) Through: Sh. Jagpaul Singh, CGSC.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

After hearing M/s Amrinder Singh along with Amar Pratap Singh and J. A. Hamal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that there is no point in keeping the matter pending and, accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the petition in terms of the following order.

¶15

The State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Central Government came out with an Industrial Policy which aims to accelerate industrial development and to boost the confidence of the investors. Accordingly, notification dated 14.11.2002 exempting goods cleared from units located in specified areas from the duty equivalent to the amounts of duty paid by the manufacturer, other than the amount of duty paid by utilisation of CENVAT credit was to be refunded in cash. The Government thereafter issued notifications dated 27.03.2008, 10.06.2008 and amended the earlier notification by granting exemption by way of refund of excise duty but to a maximum limit as mentioned in the table in respect of different goods. The

¶16

¶17

policy, however, permitted the additional fixation of special rate of exemption in certain cases.

¶18

The petitioner by means of this writ petition is seeking directions to adjudicate the applications filed by it for fixing special rate of valued addition in terms of notification dated 14.11.2002 as amended vide notifications dated 27.03.2008 and 10.06.2008. The said applications were field by the petitioner on 10.07.2020 and 27.07.2020 but have not yet been decided.

¶19

Sh. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents will consider and decide the above applications within a reasonable time as may be fixed by the court.

¶20

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are routinely rejecting such applications on the ground of limitation and that in such facts and circumstances, a writ petition came to be filed before the Gauhati High Court in the case of ‘ M/s Jyothy Labs Ltd. V. UOI and 2 others ’, which has been decided vide judgment and order dated 12.08.2021. The court in allowing the writ petition held that the ground for rejecting such application for the reason it was not submitted within 30^th September of the given financial year would perhaps be not available to the respondent authorities for rejecting the applications.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of this petition with the direction to the respondent No.3, Assistant Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Division, Jammu to consider the above applications of the petitioner for fixation of a special rate in terms of the notifications referred to above in accordance with law most expeditiously without insisting for the time of filing of the applications in the light of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, if possible, within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.

¶22

¶23

In the meantime, no final order shall be passed in response to the show-cause notices dated 29.02.2012, 24.05.2012, 01.08.2012, 03.05.2013,11.06.2013, 19.03.2015, 19.06.2019, 17.06.2020 and 18.06.2020 for a period of one month or till the aforesaid applications are decided as directed.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

Jammu 09.09.2021 Tilak

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Th Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India Th Secretary Deptt of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Th Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India Th Secretary Deptt of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Ghani Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary Revenue Department

Nikhil Padha, Human Rights Activist Vs Chairman National Human Rights Commission

Virender Pandoh Vs State Th.Dy.Commssioner,Reasi and Ors.

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs Union of India Th Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others

Modern Papers Th Authorised Signatory Jetinder Reshi, Manager Plant Operation Vs Union of India Th Secretary Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance

Ashiq Hussain and Ors. Vs State Th.Revenue Deptt.and Ors.