Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Patel Angadia & Co Pvt Ltd on 22 September, 2008
Bench: Deepak Verma, B. Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT op KARNATAKA AT L DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF sizes = A ' % % _ THE HON'BLE M1z.J:tz.a'1*I¢*:E THE HON'BL}3 .a;gmUs1TI¢Ej13. GGWDA BETVVEI?.N::: » 'A Post' No.''.'54_0G .
C.R..{Buiiding % Bzmgalqre. «Appellant ,Add}Solicitor General) % iiaxi Angadia & Co.Pvt.Ltd. % 130.60, Jumma Masjid Road ,..P$angalore 560 002 Represented by its Director Sri Lalith Jain -
(By Sri r K., Advocate) This Writ Appeal is flied under season 4 ofthe Court Act, 1961, seeking to set aside the <mi.er'--af V' Judge dated 9.2.2007 passed in Writ Petition %i~«z;;.:;:s:.**:?4 ofziéoé. 7 AA / . This Writ Appeal coming on " 1 day, DEEPAK VERMAJ. deiivcmxifplffi-w:§;§':§:"
appeared fa; K, learned coumel for therewondcfii, " ._ V us in this writ $1 preferred under am am offigg Hig. Court Act, 1951 aging the order pa@'¢ __§4§ti£ion No.33274 of 2004, decided by learned Single c£z:1.9;i';'2007. was Petition under Articlas 226 and 227 of " prefexred bythe appeliant herein. mm the ordw by the Central Excise Service Tax Appeliate Trit-ma; ' i . M k T ((: EsTA'1) ON 25.11.2003.
3. Learned Single Judge, aiier gvufl ' g amnous' V' whole matter, dismisscd the writ petition, prixiiasily 91$ thg? the impugned order passed by the Tribunal the provisiom of Section 130 ofthe {he said statutory appeal hav'mg not was out to exercise extraordinary court under Articles 225 and that has been cmsidered by levy of penalty was on the facts am; or ti1erefm'e, it was not liable tobeinterferédxéifh.' % It 'not us by the learned counsel for the main order passed by the CESTAT, writ and 227 ofthe Cemtxt:mcm' ' , filed at the Vimrzzsxace "sf avg 'apifieilam Department is pending adjudication at the cm: ¢£*'c":a:c1ma, and the samc has bean acmw d for Iu:anng,' . In face, before the learned Single Judge this me was brougm to A his nofice with a prayer that hearing ofthe mi: petition be deferred ti}! the mam' matter is disposed of by the Calcutta High Cold out ofthe main order passed by the CESTAT. "rm sggiai negatived by {earned Single Judge for rm «reg byeim, : '
5. Today, aeer arguing for a the appeliani submitted that he e-éixza file Appeal/Writ Petition before appropriate forum,e§h;u Calcutta High Court, as the proceedings were challenged Single Judge, is been High Court.
7. that the appellant be gamed and to prosecute the matter before in aeeordance with law. We are aieo of the the writ petth 'on ia the Calcufla High Court is a:
. appellant herein challenging the main order passed by therefore, the order passed in penalty ' be heard by the same Court so as to avoid passing ofany my me. We Iudge
8. Keeping this fact in mind, we grant liberty to the wiihdmw tfis writ appeal, with fur%r liberty to High Court in wwialwe with law as However, it is clarified that whatever steps aplielfiizt is ti) l 'V ' it should be taken within a pexiod of aoxjgys 'lxeréia!l_a"i3;.*.l'-jfollivgllléllsaid period, appellant would get on the ground of or Qn the as the case may be. However, urge and take all other objecfiomlru above. Appeal wands d1spo' scdof .
Sd/-* Iudge Sd/-~