2015 (11) TMI 1714 - HC - Service Tax

Remand application - Evasion of payment of Service Tax - the petitioner seeks, inter alia, issuance of a mandatory order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to cancel and/or withdraw and/or rescind of the remand application dated 8th September, 2015 - Held that - In the facts of this instant case, this application is not made bona fide by the petitioner. The reason is, a person who gives an undertaking before this Court - which evidently is not complied with, subsequently - and gets benefit of an order based on such undertaking and thereafter seeks to invoke this Court s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not a person worthy to be considered for being granted such discretionary reliefs, in the absence of palpable demonstration of bona fide conduct before seeking such discretionary reliefs - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to remand application due to Service Tax evasion; Seeking cancellation of remand application and determination of dues separately; Criminal proceeding pending; Grant of bail based on undertaking; Discretionary relief under Article 226; Bona fide conduct in seeking relief.

Analysis:
The writ proceeding challenges a remand application dated 8th September, 2015, due to the evasion of Service Tax by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the cancellation, withdrawal, or rescindment of the remand application and requests a determination of dues on account of Service Tax from all three business entities separately before any recovery proceedings. Additionally, the petitioner asks for final adjudication based on a previous court order dated 3rd November, 2015.

A criminal proceeding against the petitioner is pending, with the petitioner previously taken into custody and subsequently granted bail on the condition of paying a substantial balance amount within a specified timeframe. The High Court's order releasing the petitioner on bail was based on the undertaking given by the petitioner before the court.

In the context of seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner must demonstrate unimpeachable bona fides. However, the court finds that the petitioner's conduct is not bona fide as the petitioner failed to comply with the undertaking given before the court, which formed the basis for the bail order. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed unworthy of discretionary reliefs without a palpable demonstration of bona fide conduct.

Consequently, the court summarily dismisses the writ petition due to the lack of bona fide conduct by the petitioner. The urgency for a certified copy of the order to be provided to the respective advocates for the parties is also noted.