2015 (6) TMI 1022 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - Issue of limitation - No finding on the issue of limitation raised by the appellant and it was without dealing with that contention that the appellant was ordered to deposit ₹ 1 crore by the Tribunal - Held that - the order of the Tribunal itself shows that the appellant himself had admitted that 35 lakhs of the service tax demanded was for the normal period. This, therefore, mean that the issue of limitation, though not considered by the Tribunal, cannot have any relevance in so far as this 35 crores is concerned. Therefore, appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 35 lakhs within four weeks from today and report compliance before the Tribunal. Subject to deposit, pre deposit of the balance due under the order impugned before the Tribunal will stand dispensed with. The order of the Tribunal will stand set aside. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to stay order by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Compliance with deposit requirements, Consideration of limitation issue, Compliance with court directions, Disputed service tax amount, Delay in final disposal of appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court challenged the stay order issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which required the appellant society to deposit a significant amount of service tax, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the deposit order. However, the High Court had previously set aside the Tribunal's order due to the lack of consideration of the limitation issue raised by the appellant. Despite the court's direction, the Tribunal failed to address the limitation issue in its subsequent order, rendering it non-compliant with the court's directions. As a result, the High Court found the Tribunal's order unsustainable.

The High Court noted that even though the limitation issue was not considered by the Tribunal, the appellant had admitted that a portion of the service tax demanded was for the normal period, making the limitation issue irrelevant for that specific amount. The Court acknowledged that the appeal had been ongoing since 2013, and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration would further delay the final disposal of the appeal. Therefore, instead of sending the case back to the Tribunal, the High Court directed the appellant to deposit the amount of 35 lakhs within a specified timeframe and report compliance to the Tribunal. Upon compliance with this directive, the pre-deposit of the remaining balance under the Tribunal's order was dispensed with, and the Tribunal's order was set aside, thereby disposing of the appeal accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of compliance with deposit requirements, consideration of the limitation issue, adherence to court directions, and the disputed service tax amount. By providing a specific directive for the appellant to deposit a portion of the disputed amount, the Court aimed to expedite the resolution of the appeal and ensure fairness in the proceedings.