Duliajan Industrial Growth ... vs Union Of India And 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2323 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010096542023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/3131/2023

            GASGEN FERRO ALLOYS LLP
            A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD. UNDER THE LIMITED
            LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 HAVING ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT AT
            DULIAJAN INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, COLLEGE ROAD, DULIAJAN,
            ASSAM, PIN- 786602, AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY MR.
            BAJRANG LOHIA, THE DESIGNATED PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER FIRM



            VERSUS

            UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
            FINANCE, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

            2:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
             CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
             GST BHAWAN
             KEDAR ROAD
             FANCY BAZAR
             GHY-781001

            3:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
             CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
             DIBRUGARH DIVISION
             C.R. BUILDING
             DIBRUGARH- 786003
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : DR. ASHOK SARAF

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3


                                 BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                    ORDER

Date : 02.06.2023

Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N.N. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Issue notice returnable in 4 (four) weeks.

3. Requisite extra copies of the writ petition be furnished to the learned departmental counsel in course of the day.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the case of Food Corporation of India & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 495 has submitted that the principle that may be culled out from the said decision is that the interest could have been levied from the date of demand being made.

5. The said contention has been opposed by the learned standing counsel for the respondents by submitting that as the challenge was negated by the Supreme Court of India by judgment and order dated 2.04.2020, it was the duty of the petitioner to satisfy the demand regarding refund, which was provided to the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the Court. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has referred to the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong v. Woodcraft Products Ltd., (2002) 10 SCC 734.

6. On consideration of the matter in its entirety, as an interim measure, Page No.# 3/3

the Court is inclined to provide that taking note of the fact that the petitioner claims to have deposited the principal amount due on 26.03.2021, the petitioner shall deposit the interest claim by the petitioner from 20.04.2020 to 26.03.2021. Insofar as the balance demand is concerned, the same would be subject to further orders that may be passed on the next date.

7. It is also provided that the respondents shall calculate the interest and intimate to the petitioner by email within 10 (ten) days from today and payment shall be made within a week thereafter. On payment of such amount, the balance demand for interest shall remain stayed.

8. List after 4 (four) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant