Allowed

Jammu Pigments Limited Th Ramsharan Goswami v. Union of India Th Secretary Deptt of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Others

J&K HC22 Nov 2022WP(C)/2520/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting an application for fixation of special rate of value addition under Notification No. 56/2002. The High Court quashed the rejection order, citing a Gauhati High Court decision and a Coordinate Bench direction, and directed the authorities to reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order; directed Respondent No. 2 to consider petitioner's application for fixation of special rate of value addition afresh.

Jammu Pigments Limited Th Ramsharan Goswami Vs Union of… — Company and Corporate | J&K HC (2022)

¶1

Serial No. 56 Regular Causelist

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP (C) No. 2520/2022 CM No. 6913/2022

¶4

Jammu Pigments Limited.

¶5

….. Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: - Mr. Moomin Khan, Advocate.

¶7

V/s

¶8

Union of India & Ors.

¶9

….. Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: - Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

22.11.2022

¶15

In the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of impugned order dated 20.10.2022 in 01/CE/SRC/Commissioner/J&K/202223(DIN-20221050ZA0000111FE4), with consequential relief to fix the special rate of value addition in terms of Para 2.1 of Notification No 56/2002 – C.E dated 14.11.2002 as amended by Notification No. 19/2008 -- C.E dated 10.06.2008.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner had filed an application before the Respondent No. 2 on 18.08.2022 for the benefit of fixation of special rate of value addition in terms of Para 2.1 of Notification No 56/2002 – C.E dated 14.11.2002 as amended by Notification No. 19/2008 -- C.E. dated 10.06.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 2 refused to fix the special rate of value addition and rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 20.10.2022, on the ground that the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 2 has rejected the application on the ground of limitation and similar rejection order was challenged in a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court in the case of ‘M/s Jyothy Labs Ltd. V. UOI and 2 others’.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Coordinate

¶19

Bench of this Court has already while noticing the approach adopted by the respondents not having dealt with the claim of similarly situated persons/ petitioners, disposed of the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1844/2021 with direction to the respondents to decide the application without insisting for the time of filing of the applications in the light of the judgment of the Guahati High Court.

¶20

Mr. Rahul Nanda, learned appearing counsel for the respondents submits that the application of the petitioner can be considered afresh on similar directions as passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP (C) No. 1844/2021 on 09.09.2021.

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner in order to avail the benefit of fixation of special rate of value addition in terms of Para 2.1 of Notification No 56/2002 – C.E dated 14.11.2002 as amended by Notification No. 19/2008 -- C.E. dated 10.06.2008, had submitted an application before the Respondent No. 2 on 18.08.2022, which stands rejected vide order impugned dated 20.10.2022 on the ground that the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation, which order is challenged by the petitioner through the medium of the instant writ petition on varied grounds with particular reference that the order is not a reasoned one and passed by non-adherence to principles of natural justice and in in a casual manner.

¶23

We have noticed that the order impugned has been passed by the Respondent No. 2 by not allowing any benefit to the petitioner and rejecting such application for the reason that it was not submitted within 30^th September of the given financial year.

¶24

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the Respondent No. 2 has passed the order impugned merely on the ground of limitation, which the petitioner is substantiating, therefore, we feel that the order impugned deserves to be quashed with direction to the Respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for fixation of special rate of value addition in terms of notification referred to above.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

In view of the above, we deem it proper to keep the order impugned dated 20.10.2022 in 01/CE/SRC/Commissioner/J&K/2022-23(DIN 20221050ZA0000111FE4) in abeyance for a period of one month or till the application of the petitioner for fixation of special rate of value addition is decided afresh in accordance with the notification mentioned supra.

¶28

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition shall stand disposed of along with connected CM.

¶29

Copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the seal and signature of Bench Secretary today itself.

¶30

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

JAMMU: 22.11.2022 “Hamid”

Jammu Pigments Limited Th Ramsharan Goswami 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?

Jammu Pigments Limited Th Ramsharan Goswami 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

Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J and K Jammu Vs M/S Gaurav Agro - Chem Industries Sicop Igc Kathua J and K

Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J and K Jammu Vs M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Igc Samba J and K

Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Jammu Vs Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals Ltd.

Soma Devi and Anr. Vs M.D., J and K Housing Board and Ors.

Anil Dutt and Others Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Sukhdev Singh and Others Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others