Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST Case Laws





Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order



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

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.

Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-03-28

Since the allegations in the show cause notices in all these three cases more or less are the same, the allegations in the show cause notices issued to VEMPL are taken up as a starting point for this order. 

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-03-26

On going through the order, we find that the order is categorical in stating that the adjudicating authority will arrive at a conclusion on properly weighing the evidence available on record and it has also been stated that the Bench has not gone into the merits of the case.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-03-25

The learned Counsel states that there is an error of law committed by this Tribunal, both in calculating the period of limitation and also in ignoring the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court and Larger Bench of this Tribunal which had a binding effect on the Division Bench. Further, in the final order, there is no discussion, distinguishing the Larger Bench ruling in Margra Industries Ltd. 

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-03-15

Per-contra, ld. D.R. has submitted that order is speaking one and after discussing all facts and circumstances and relevant law that while setting aside the penalty, the demand was still confirmed. There is no error apparent on record. Otherwise also under the garb of application for rectification of  mistake, recalling /reviewing of order is not maintainable. Application is prayed to be dismissed.