Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9179 Jhar
Judgement Date : 11 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 684 of 2024
1. M/s. Khosla Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at Plot No. 27, Phase IV, Adityapur
Industrial Area, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S.: Gamharia,
Jharkhand through its Director Shri Bishendra Singh,
son of Shri Ramjanam Singh, aged about 59 years,
Resident of H No. 10, H.I.G., Adarsh Nagar, Sonari,
P.O. & P.S.: Sonari, District: East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand.
2. Amit Gupta, son of Late Shri K.P. Gupta, aged
about 47 years, resident of 38, North West Circuit
House Area, P.O. & P.S.: Bistupur, Town:
Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
3. Bishendra Singh, son of Shri Ramjanam Singh,
aged about 59 years, Resident of H. No. 10, H.I.G.,
Adarsh Nagar, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.: Sonari, District:
East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
4. M/s. Chanduka Hi-Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd., a
company registered under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at Plot No. NS-86(P),
Phase-VI, Adityapur Industrial Area, Gamharia, P.O.
& P.S: Gamharia, Jharkhand through its Director
About your Shri Amit Gupta, aged about 47 years, son
of Late Shri K.P. Gupta, resident of 38, North West
Circuit House Area, P.O. & P.S.: Bistupur, Town
Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India,
Through the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST
and Central Excise, Division-III, having its office at
143, New Baradwari, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S.: Sakchi,
Town: Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum- 831001
(Jharkhand)
..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate.
For the CGST : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate.
------
02/ 11.09.2024 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have earlier moved before this court in W.P.(T) No. 3862 of 2016 for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2016, however, the said
writ petition was withdrawn with the liberty to avail the remedy available under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that pursuant to that the said remedy was invoked and the petitioner preferred an appeal after making pre-deposit of 7.5% of the disputed amount. He further submits that after filing of the appeal, one complaint case has been filed following the Prosecution Guidelines in case of Excise Duty / Service Tax Evasion, particularly clause-6.5. He submits that there are pre-procedural lapses, in view of that, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak Versus Merino Panel Product Limited, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 597.
2. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CGST shall take instruction and file counter affidavit in the matter within four weeks.
3. Let this matter appear on 28.10.2024.
4. No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners, in connection with complaint case, being C/1-5436 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, till the next date of listing.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!