9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 864 - HC - Central ExciseContest to present petition - no challenge to judgment and order dated 3 February 2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat - HELD THAT - The respondent no. 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost and this amount shall be paid before the next date to the High Court Legal Aid Fund, Account No. 60045304283, IFSC-MAHB0000002, of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch- Fort, Mumbai 400 032, maintained by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai. Room No. 105, 1st Floor, PWD Building, High Court, Mumbai and to furnish the details of such cost to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai and obtain the receipt thereof physically or through Email, i.e., [email protected] which shall be the proof of such payment/deposit. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Contesting a petition despite a similar judgment by another High Court. 2. Respondent's decision to contest the petition despite a favorable judgment. 3. Service of respondents and respondent no. 2's non-participation in the proceedings. Issue 1: Contesting a petition despite a similar judgment by another High Court The High Court noted that the petitioners relied on a judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a similar case involving the petitioners. The petitioners argued that since the respondents did not challenge the Gujarat High Court's judgment, there was no reason for them to contest the present petition. The Court adjourned the case multiple times for the respondents to decide their stand. If no reply affidavit was filed within two weeks, it was decided that the Court would proceed based on the petitioners' statement. Issue 2: Respondent's decision to contest the petition despite a favorable judgment In a subsequent order, the Court highlighted that the impugned show cause notice was based on similar facts as a previous case where the Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The only difference was the tax involved. Despite this, the respondents, represented by the Revenue, decided to contest the present petition. The Court found this surprising and directed the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise to justify the differing stand taken by the Revenue. The Court emphasized that the affidavit should be filed by the Principal Commissioner personally. Issue 3: Service of respondents and respondent no. 2's non-participation in the proceedings The Court acknowledged that all respondents were served except for respondent no. 2, who had not participated in the proceedings for over five years. Despite strong opposition, the Court granted an extension but imposed a stiff cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on respondent no. 2. The amount was to be paid to the High Court Legal Aid Fund before the next date, and proof of payment was required to be furnished to the High Court Legal Services Committee. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of contesting a petition despite a similar judgment, the decision of the respondents to continue contesting, and the non-participation of a respondent leading to the imposition of a cost. The Court emphasized the need for justification when differing from a previous judgment and imposed a significant cost for non-participation.
|
