TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Upholds Stay Order Challenge, Emphasizes Need for Reasoned Orders on Petitions</h1> <h3>SAKHEE DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> SAKHEE DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 26 (Guj.) Issues:1. Disposal of petitions arising from a common order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Challenge to the common order dated 26-3-2004 due to lack of reasoning.3. Request to quash the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.Analysis:1. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad addressed the disposal of petitions arising from a common order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitions were disposed of by a common order due to their connection with the order dated 26-3-2004 from the Tribunal. The petitioners had fully deposited the duty amount but were unable to deposit the penalty amount due to financial constraints. The court noted that it is within the discretion of the Tribunal to pass conditional stay orders.2. The challenge to the common order dated 26-3-2004 was primarily based on the lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's decision. The petitioners argued that the order was a non-speaking order, as it did not provide any reasons for the dismissal of the stay applications. The court referred to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the necessity for the Tribunal to provide reasons while passing orders on stay applications. It was observed that the impugned order lacked any reasoning, making it liable to be quashed and set aside.3. Consequently, the High Court allowed both petitions, quashed the common order dated 26-3-2004, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The court directed the Tribunal to decide on the stay applications with a brief reasoned order addressing all contentions raised by the petitioners. It was highlighted that the Tribunal should consider the fact that the duty amount had been deposited by the petitioners, even though the outstanding penalty amount was not fulfilled. The court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, concluding the judgment.
TaxTMI 