Jud Cements Ltd VS Commissioner Of Central Goods and Service Tax And Central Excise

The petition in question seeks a modification of an order dated December 7, 2021, which was subsequently amended by an order on March 23, 2022, in a case known as WP (C) No.344 of 2021.

The petitioner’s history is called into question, suggesting a past tendency to raise false alarms without valid reasons, potentially undermining the credibility of their current plea. In the initial order dated December 7, 2021, the petitioner, an assessee, was granted permission to settle a total outstanding amount of Rs.43,49,50,071/- in 24 installments.

The petition at hand seeks a modification of an order dated December 7, 2021, which was later altered by an order issued on March 23, 2022, within the context of WP (C) No.344 of 2021. It appears that the petitioner may have previously made unsubstantiated claims or requests, leading to a perception of unwarranted alarm, potentially impacting the credibility of their current plea.

Initially, by the December 7, 2021 order, the petitioner, identified as the assessee, was granted permission to settle a total outstanding amount of Rs. 43,49,50,071/- in 24 equal or nearly equal monthly installments. These installments were set to commence from December 15, 2021, with subsequent payments due by the 15th day of the following 23 months.

However, there seems to have been a subsequent application from the petitioner, resulting in a modification of the original order on March 23, 2022. While details regarding the nature of this modification are not explicitly provided, it suggests a revision or adjustment to the terms initially established.

This petition seeks to amend an order from December 7, 2021, subsequently altered by a March 23, 2022 order in the case of WP (C) No.344 of 2021. The petitioner was initially granted permission to pay a total outstanding amount of Rs. 43,49,50,071/- in 24 equal or nearly equal monthly installments starting from December 15, 2021. However, a modification was made on March 23, 2022, allowing an extension for a one-time measure, without setting a precedent for future leniency, specifically extending the deadline for payment due on March 15, 2022, to April 5, 2022.

The petitioner’s current plea may be overshadowed by past behavior where they seemingly exaggerated or falsely claimed issues, hence diluting the credibility of their current request. The recent excuse presented by the petitioner revolves around a squall that struck the East Jaintia Hills region in the third week of April 2022. The petitioner relies on a report detailing the damage caused by the squall as evidence for their inability to meet the payment deadline.

The court must weigh the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim against their past conduct and the terms set forth in previous orders. Despite the extenuating circumstances presented by the petitioner, the court may be cautious in granting further indulgence, considering the precedent set by the earlier modification and the need for consistency in judicial decisions.

This petition pertains to a request for modification of an order issued on December 7, 2021, which was subsequently amended on March 23, 2022, in the case of WP (C) No.344 of 2021. The petitioner, in this case, has a history of making unsubstantiated claims, potentially weakening the credibility of their current plea. Initially, the petitioner was allowed to pay a total outstanding amount of Rs.43,49,50,071/- in 24 monthly installments starting from December 15, 2021. However, on March 23, 2022, this order was altered to grant a one-time extension for the payment due on March 15, 2022, until April 5, 2022, without affecting subsequent payments as per the original order.

Now, the petitioner cites a recent natural disaster – a squall that struck the East Jaintia Hills region in the third week of April 2022 – as the reason for their inability to make payments. They present a report indicating damages exceeding Rs.4 crore and estimating three months for repairs, weather permitting.

The petitioner seeks a three-month moratorium on the installment payments mandated by the order of December 7, 2021, as modified on March 23, 2022. Essentially, they request relief from making payments for April 2022, for which they are already in default.

This petition seeks a modification of an order issued on December 7, 2021, subsequently amended on March 23, 2022, in WP (C) No.344 of 2021. The petitioner, who had previously sought relief without sufficient cause, now presents a new plea. Initially, the petitioner was allowed to pay a total outstanding amount of Rs. 43,49,50,071/- in 24 equal or nearly equal monthly installments starting from December 15, 2021. However, on March 23, 2022, the order was altered to extend the deadline for a payment due on March 15, 2022, until April 5, 2022, as a one-time measure, explicitly stating that this leniency should not set a precedent for further indulgence.

The current plea is based on a natural disaster—a squall that struck the East Jaintia Hills region in April 2022. The petitioner provides a report assessing the damage, estimating repair costs exceeding Rs. 4 crore and a three-month repair timeline, contingent on favorable weather conditions.

The petitioner requests a three-month moratorium on payments stipulated in the December 7, 2021 order, as amended on March 23, 2022. Essentially, they seek to suspend installment payments for April, May, and June 2022, proposing to add these amounts to the total due on June 30, 2022, extending the payment plan accordingly.

The petition at hand seeks a modification of an order dated December 7, 2021, later amended on March 23, 2022, in a legal case designated as WP (C) No.344 of 2021. Initially, the petitioner, an assessee, was allowed to pay a substantial outstanding amount in 24 monthly installments starting from December 15, 2021. However, a subsequent application led to a modification on March 23, 2022, extending the deadline for the March 15, 2022 payment.

The petitioner’s current plea for modification is based on a natural disaster, specifically a squall that affected the East Jaintia Hills region in April 2022. The petitioner relies on an assessment indicating repair costs exceeding Rs. 4 crore and a three-month repair timeframe under favorable weather conditions.

The requested relief is a three-month moratorium on payments due under the December 7, 2021 order, effectively skipping payments for April, May, and June 2022, with the overdue amounts added to subsequent installments.

However, the court expresses skepticism regarding the petitioner’s conduct, suggesting a pattern of seeking leniency and exploiting the court’s generosity. Despite assurances from the petitioner’s side, the court anticipates further requests for delays in payment.

Nevertheless, acknowledging the damage to the petitioner’s manufacturing facility, the court grants a two-month moratorium. This means the April 2022 payment won’t be considered in default, and the May 2022 payment can be deferred. However, the court rejects the request to spread out the overdue amounts across future installments, directing the petitioner to settle the outstanding amounts for April and May 2022 as specified.

Furthermore, the court warns that any future default in payments will empower the Department to take immediate action without recourse to the court.

In summary, the court grants a partial relief to the petitioner due to the documented damage but maintains a strict stance on future compliance with payment obligations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: