9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Appeal is preferred by the petitioners in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2758 of 2019 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2019 dismissing the Writ Petition. 2. The appellants-writ petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun dated 30.04.2019; a writ of mandamus directing that the matter be remanded to the Commissioner, CGST for de-novo adjudication; a writ of mandamus directing the CESTAT, New Delhi not to proceed further with the hearing of the matter till the finality of the present Writ Petition; and a writ of mandamus prohibiting the respondents from taking any coercive steps in furtherance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority, to deposit, with the adjudicating authority, the duty charged or the penalty levied. The first proviso thereto enabled the Commissioner (Appeals), or the Appellate Tribunal, if it was of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, to dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue. The second proviso to Section 35F obligated such an application to be decided within thirty days from its filing. 6. The pre-amended Section 35F required the entire duty demanded by the adjudicating authority to be deposited, and conferred powers on the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal, in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellants-writ petitioners, would rely on a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shubh Impex v. Union of India and others (order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 138/2018 and CM No. 593/2019 dated 27.04.2018). 9. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed that the direction to deposit Rs. 1.27 crores as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal, in the facts of the case before it and in view of the nature of the controversy involved, would deprive and deplete the petitioner therein of his cash-in-hand, and would completely disable and paralyze business operations. Considering the financial condition and background of the petitioner therein, the Division Bench was of the view that the pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (Bom)]. 12. Even otherwise, the decision of a Court is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio, and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Mistra and others : AIR 1968 SC 647; Quinn v. Leathem : 1901 AC 495). The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, rendered on the facts and circumstances of the case before it, would not constitute a binding precedent, much less on another High Court. 13. As it would be wholly inappropriate for the High Court, in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
