Disposed

M/s Enmar Logistics Private Limited, v. The Deputy Commissioner

Telangana HC9 Apr 2013WP/10469/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filing by M/s. Enmar Logistics Private Limited against a recovery notice. The Court directed respondents to refrain from initiating coercive recovery steps pending the disposal of the appellant's appeal and stay application before the appellate authorities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount determined in the original order till the stay application is disposed of.

M/s Enmar Logistics Private Limited, Vs The Deputy… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.10469 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 09.04.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Enmar Logistics Private Limited, Visakhapatnam.

¶7

.. Petitioner And

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Visakhaptnam and 4 others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 10469 OF 2013

¶13

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶14

By order dated 31.01.2012, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I Commissionerate determined the amount payable by the petitioner towards the service tax apart from imposing interest and the penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondentCommissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned notice dated 12.03.2013 demanding payment of the amounts as per the original order dated 31.01.2012 immediately under the threat of coercive steps stating that as per the circular dated 01.01.2013, the proceedings for recovery have to be initiated after 30 days if no stay is granted or after the disposal of the stay petition in accordance with the conditions of stay, if any specified, whichever is earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax.

¶16

It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for both the parties that in similar circumstances, various writ petitions were disposed of by this Court directing that no coercive steps should be

¶17

initiated for recovery of the amount of liability determined against the petitioners therein till the stay petitions were decided by the appellate authorities.

¶18

Having regard to the fact that the stay application filed by the petitioner herein along with the main appeal against the order dated 31.01.2012 is admittedly pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount as determined in the original order dated 31.01.2012, if not already recovered, till the stay application filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.

¶19

It is made clear that the stay application as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam without having regard to any of the observations made in this order.

¶20

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶22

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶23

_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶24

Date: 09.04.2013 KLP

M/s Enmar Logistics Private Limited, v. The Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Enmar Logistics Private Limited, v. The Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K. v. Rayudu, Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s Chebrole Agro Private Ltd., Vs The Asst. Commissioner Customs and Service Tax Range

M/s. Srinidha Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s.Sharat Industries Ltd. Vs The Asst. Commissioner