2013 (3) TMI 107 - HC - Service Tax

Notice of recovery of the demand - Held that - As assessment order was passed against the petitioner way back on 18.11.2011 & petitioner filed an appeal along with stay application as well as exemption from depositing the pre-deposit amount way back on 17.02.2012 & the stay application is pending before the Tribunal since then the respondent-Department is pressing hard for depositing the amount in question as the stay application is pending before the Tribunal for last more than 11 months - issue direction to the respondent-Tribunal to hear and decide the stay application of petitioner, as early as possible.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of recovery notices dated 16.01.2013 and 24.01.2013.
2. Direction to the Tribunal to decide the stay application of the petitioner.

Analysis:
The writ petition sought to quash recovery notices issued by the Superintendent, Service Tax Range-I, Central Excise Department, Jaipur, on 16.01.2013 and 24.01.2013, and requested a directive to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, to promptly decide the petitioner's stay application. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 18.11.2011, along with a stay application, on 17.02.2012. The Tribunal had not yet heard the stay application, while the Department was pressing for recovery. The petitioner urged the Tribunal to stay the recovery proceedings until the stay application was decided.

The respondent opposed granting interim stay but agreed to expedite the hearing of the stay application. Considering the delay in deciding the stay application, which had been pending for over 11 months, the Court directed the Tribunal to hear and decide the petitioner's stay application expeditiously, within three weeks. The Court scheduled a hearing on 11.02.2013 before the Tribunal and instructed the respondent-Department not to take any coercive action against the petitioner until then. The Court disposed of the Stay Application No. 982/2013, with each party bearing its own costs.

In conclusion, the High Court granted the writ petition, directing the Tribunal to promptly decide the petitioner's stay application and scheduling a hearing within three weeks. The Court emphasized that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner by the respondent-Department until the Tribunal's decision.