Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-04-10

We find that since there is a conflict between the two Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter is referred to the Chief Justice of India with a request to constitute a Bench to decide on the issue. In this regard, the reference in the case of Mineral Area Deveplopment Authority & Others Vs. SAIL eported in(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450, is reproduced below.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-04-08

Shri T.K. Sikdar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that appellant have not raised the claim regarding the threshold limit before both the lower authorities and the same cannot be raised before this Tribunal. 


Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-04-08

The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/applicants, submits that since there is a conflict between the two Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter is referred to the Chief Justice of India with a request to constitute a Bench to decide on the issue. In this regard, the reference in the case of Mineral Area Deveplopment Authority & Others Vs. SAIL reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450, is reproduced below


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-05

We have thus no hesitation in concluding that the High Court has jurisdiction in appropriate case to consider the challenge against an order framing charge and also to grant stay but how such power is to be exercised and when stay ought to be granted needs to be considered further.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-03

Had the officials concerned applied their mind to the judgment as a whole, instead of selectively culling out certain expressions therein, the present problem and potential chaos could well have been avoided. It is abundantly clear from the narration of the background facts, the observations therein and the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have been discussed in detail that the controversy in re Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd pertained to delay arising from challenge to the framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This needs no further elaboration in view of the observation that


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-03

It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in the PC Act cases, has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest. Delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases it has been laid down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with restraint. Mere prima facie case is not enough. Party seeking stay must be put to terms and stay should not be incentive to delay. The order granting stay must show application of mind. The power to grant stay is coupled with accountability.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-03

The wisdom of legislature and the object of final and expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding cannot be ignored. In exercise of its power the High Court is to balance the freedom of an individual on the one hand and security of the society on the other. Only in case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction. The acknowledged experience is that where challenge to an order framing charge is entertained, the matter remains pending for long time which defeats the interest of justice. does not appear to have made an impression in the minds of the officers.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-01

We have thus no hesitation in concluding that the High Court has jurisdiction in appropriate case to consider the challenge against an order framing charge and also to grant stay but how such power is to be exercised and when stay ought to be granted needs to be considered further.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-01

It appears to us that, omitting to peruse the observation in the concurring judgment to the effect that,‘17.... A judgment has to be read as a whole...’,the attention of the jurisdictional officers was inexorably drawn to the direction to‘35.... In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we considered appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of 6 months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended.’ for initiating steps to implement the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-03-29

At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though they have filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court, the same is yet to be admitted and as discussed above the mistake was apparent on record and therefore, the Tribunal can rectify the same. He made a statement in case the Tribunal rectifies the mistake apparent on record, they undertake to withdraw the appeal filed before the Hon’ble High Court.