9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notices are made returnable after four weeks. - WP(C)/2865/2021 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA Advocate for the Petitioner : Dr. A. Saraf Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also present Mr. SC Keyal, learned standing counsel for the respondent GST representing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. SS Roy, learned CGC for respondent No. 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, the respondent No. 2 thereby rejecting an application of the petitioner seeking for special rate fixation on the ground of delay. The said order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led before this court learned Single Judge of this court set aside the notification dated 27.03.2008. The Union of India preferred Writ Appeal No. 243/2009 thereby challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge setting aside the notification dated 27.03.2008. During the pendency of the said writ appeal the petitioner also filed WP(C) 317/2014 challenging the said notification dated 27.03.2008. The Hon ble Division Bench of this court vide order dated 20.11.2014 dismissed the writ appeal and allowed the WP(C) 317/2014 preferred by the petitioner and tagged with Writ Appeal No. 243/2009. The Union of India preferred SLP before the Apex Court thereby challenging the judgment and order passed by the Hon ble Division Bench of this court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r requesting for fixing the special rate as per para 2(1)(i) of the notification dated 27.03.2008. During the pendency of the representation dated 04.02.2021, the respondent No. 2 issued an attachment notice to the respondent No. 5, Bank claiming that the Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 4,37,27,129/- was payable by the petitioner to the Central Government which is yet to be paid. The said letter was issued on 05.02.2021 by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner thereafter preferred WP(C) No. 973/2021 seeking for direction from this court to the respondent No. 2 for disposal of the representation dated 04.02.2021 seeking for fixing of special rate as per the notification dated 27.03.2009. On the basis of the direction passed by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erim order whereby the operation of the judgment and order of the Hon ble Division Bench of this court was stayed was conditional that the respondent No. 2 would release 50% of the amount due to the petitioner on the account of Central Excise Exemption. It cannot be held that the order passed by the Hon ble Division Bench was set aside and quashed on the date of passing the interim order by the Apex Court and as such the question of delay in seeking for special rate as per the notification dated 27.03.2008 does not arise. Further it is his contention that even if there was delay the said delay ought to have been condoned in view of the order passed by the Hon ble Apex Court dated 23.03.2020 in Misc Appeal No. 03/2020 whereby limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
