2016 (2) TMI 976 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - The CESTAT, Hyderabad is requested to hear the petitioner s application for waiver of pre-deposit at the earliest. It is made clear that, if the petitioner does not appear and put forth their arguments on the next date of hearing of the stay petition fixed by the Tribunal, it is open to the Tribunal to decide the application, for waiver of pre-deposit, on its merits without granting any further adjournment to the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order confirming service tax demand.
2. Application for waiver of pre-deposit.
3. Adjournments by the CESTAT.
4. Transfer of appeal from CESTAT Bangalore to CESTAT Hyderabad.
5. Granting another opportunity to present submissions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, appealed to the CESTAT, Bangalore against an order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1,19,79,269 along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had sought adjournments on multiple occasions, delaying the hearing process.

2. The petitioner filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit. The CESTAT, Hyderabad, where the appeal was transferred, adjourned the stay application multiple times. The Tribunal clarified that the Revenue could enforce the assessed liability despite the pending stay application.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued that most adjournments were at the instance of the CESTAT itself, except for one instance. The petitioner had engaged a senior counsel who appeared before the CESTAT, and the request for adjournment was due to the senior counsel's unavailability.

4. The CESTAT, Hyderabad, was requested to hear the petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit promptly. The Court set aside the order and emphasized that if the petitioner failed to appear and present arguments on the next hearing date, the Tribunal could decide the application based on its merits without further adjournments.

5. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the CESTAT to hear the petitioner's application without unnecessary delays. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely presentation of arguments and warned against seeking repeated adjournments.