AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Singhvi, J.—Learned Counsel requests that he may be granted leave to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause. He is allowed to do so.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The Special Civil Application is admitted for hearing.
Re : Stay
We have heard Shri D. V. Parikh in support of the petitioners'' prayer for stay of the operation and implementation of Notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-7-2003, read with Notification No. 2/2005-C.E. (N.T.), dated 7-1-2005 in so far as the same relates to grant of exemption to pharmaceutical manufacturing units situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal and imposes tax on the basis of MRP value of the medicines manufactured by other units.
In our opinion, there is no valid ground to stay the operation of the impugned Notifications because the manufacturing units situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and Uttranchal are not party respondents. That apart, there is no justification whatsoever to restrain the official respondents from charging duty and taxes from the petitioners in accordance with the impugned Notifications. If the petitioners finally succeed in persuading the Court to strike down the impugned Notifications, then it may be possible to give them the consequential relief but by an interim order the Court cannot stall the recovery of taxes and duties. In this connection, reference can usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others,
With the above observations, the prayer for stay is rejected.