Dismissed

M/S Novopan Industries Ltd, v. Union of India

Telangana HC2 Apr 2013WP/7906/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging demand for service tax recovery. Court directed respondents not to initiate coercive recovery steps until the petitioner's pending stay application before CESTAT is decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to initiate coercive steps for recovery of the amount determined in the original order till the stay application filed by the petitioner is disposed of by CESTAT, Bangalor

M/S Novopan Industries Ltd, Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 7906 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 02.04.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Novopan Industries Ltd., Medak District. .. Petitioner And Union of India, Rep., by its Secretary, New Delhi and 4 others.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION No. 7906 OF 2013

¶10

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

¶11

By order dated 10.08.2011, the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, & Service Tax, Hyderabad commissionerate determined the amount payable by the petitioner towards the Service Tax apart from imposing interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore along with an application for stay and the same is still pending. In the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 07.03.2013 demanding payment of the amounts as per the original order dated 10.08.2011 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.

¶12

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V.Gopalakrishna Gokhale, the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs and Central Excise.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Having regard to the fact that the stay application filed by the petitioner herein along with the main appeal against the order dated 10.08.2011 is admittedly pending before CESTAT, Bangalore, 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 10.08.2011 till the stay application filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the CESTAT, Bangalore.

¶16

It is made clear that the stay application as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be decided by CESTAT, Bangalore without having regard to any of the observations made in this order.

¶17

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

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

¶19

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶20

_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶21

Date: 02.04.2013 KLP

M/S Novopan Industries Ltd, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Novopan Industries Ltd, v. Union of India

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

M/s. Mahalakshmi Travels, Vs Union of India

Doshi Gems and Jewellers Private Limited, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Alliance One Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Central Excise

M/s. M.v.Rangaprasad and Company, Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

M/s Maddi Lakshmaiah Company Ltd., Vs Government of India

M/s Ml Agro Products Ltd. Vs Government of India