2017 (1) TMI 1772 - HC - Indian Laws

Stay or implementation and enforcement of the order - HELD THAT - The respondent-Revenue should inculcate as a matter of habit that the orders of the CESTAT if not stayed or its implementation and enforcement is kept in abeyance it shall implement these orders. Else this conduct of the Revenue will set a bad precedent. In that event tomorrow assessees also will openly defy binding orders and directions of a Tribunal. The Tribunal is a last fact-finding Court of appeal and presided over by a retired Judge of the High Court. Its Benches also comprise of Members (Judicial and Technical). They exercise judicial powers. In the circumstances their orders bind the parties. Once the appeal of the Revenue in this case has been admitted but interim stay is refused then we do not think that the Tribunal s order can be kept in abeyance and indefinitely. This matter is posted on 23rd January 2017. It shall appear under the caption For Passing Orders .

Summary

Issues: Compliance with CESTAT orders, Revenue's conduct, Tribunal's authority

In the judgment, the High Court emphasized the importance of compliance with orders of the CESTAT by the Revenue. The Court expressed concern over the Revenue's behavior and highlighted the need for them to follow the Tribunal's directives. It was noted that allowing the Revenue to disregard binding orders could lead to a negative precedent where taxpayers might also refuse to comply with Tribunal decisions. The Court underscored the significance of the Tribunal as a final fact-finding court presided over by a retired High Court Judge, whose orders are legally binding on the parties involved. The judgment clarified that once the Revenue's appeal is admitted but interim stay is denied, the Tribunal's order must be implemented without delay. The Court granted the Revenue an opportunity to comply with the Tribunal's order while preserving their rights and contentions in the pending appeal. Mr. Jetly, representing the Revenue, assured the Court of compliance and requested time to report back. Consequently, the Court scheduled a follow-up hearing to monitor compliance and dispose of the petition accordingly.