Bombay High Court
City And Industrial Development ... vs Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise ... on 18 November, 2022
Author: K. R. Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram
Digitally signed
by MULEY
SHUBHAM
1 913-Wp-1696-2021.doc
MULEY PRAVINRAO
SHUBHAM Date:
PRAVINRAO 2022.11.22
10:49:25
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1696 OF 2021
City And Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. .....Petitioner
Vs.
Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
Belapur Commissionerate .....Respondent
Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sriram Sridharan for Petitioner.
Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma for Respondent.
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATE : 18th NOVEMBER, 2022
P.C.:-
1. Yesterday i.e. 17th November, 2022, Mr. Sridharan mentioned to the Court that due to inadvertence it was not brought to the notice of the Court that there was a miscellaneous order dated 22nd July, 2022 passed by CESTAT. This miscellaneous order came to be passed in Miscellaneous Application moved by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II before CESTAT. A copy of the order dated 22 nd July, 2022 was also tendered to the Court. By the said order dated 22 nd July, 2022 as stated in paragraph 5 therein, paragraph 5.10 to paragraph 6.5 of the order dated 5 th August, 2019 written by the technical member has been substituted. There is no change to the dissenting judge's order dated 5th August, 2019 written by the judicial member. Mr. Sridharan pointed out to the Court that this also Shubham Muley 1/2 2 913-Wp-1696-2021.doc should have been brought to the notice of the Court when the Court heard this Petition on 11th November, 2022 and at the same time Mr. Sridharan also submitted that there would be no change in the reasons and conclusions of this Court as stated in the order dated 11th November, 2022.
2. We have considered the order dated 22 nd July, 2022 and in our view the reasons and conclusions of the Court in the order dated 11 th November, 2022 would continue to apply. This is because in the first sentence of paragraph 5 of the miscellaneous order, it has been reiterated that there is a difference of opinion between the judicial member and the technical member. Therefore no further orders or modifications to the earlier order of this Court dated 11 th November, 2022 is called for. At the request of Mr. Sharma we clarify that the order passed on 11 th November, 2022 in Writ Petition No.1696 of 2021 would quash impugned order only in Service Tax Appeal No.89766 of 2013. We are informed the other Appeals had been settled by Petitioner independently.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Shubham Muley 2/2