2014 (12) TMI 122 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Interest u/s 75 - Penalty u/s 78 - Held that - Discretion exercised by the appellate authority in passing the inter-locutory order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The claim made by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been substantiated so far. The documents in support of the claim are yet to be co-related to the duty which might have been paid by the petitioner s corporate office, transporter or vendor. The aforesaid documents are yet to be produced before the Appellate Authority. There is no document on the record for us to presume that the petitioner has discharged the liability through anyone else of paying service tax - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of inter-locutory order for pre-deposit of service tax amount.
2. Dispute regarding the payment of service tax by corporate office, vendor, and transporter.
3. Legal infirmity in the discretion exercised by the appellate authority.
4. Substantiation of the claim made by the petitioner.
5. Dismissal of the petition with costs and direction to deposit the pre-deposit amount.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash an inter-locutory order requiring a pre-deposit of twenty lakhs rupees for the appeal hearing. The original order confirmed service tax demand, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the pre-deposit based on the petitioner's claim that service tax was paid by others, which needed detailed examination for correct quantification.

2. The petitioner argued that service tax was paid by its corporate office, vendor, and transporter, thus not leviable on them. However, the appellate authority found the claim unsubstantiated, lacking supporting documents. The court upheld the authority's decision, noting the absence of evidence showing discharge of tax liability by any other party. The petitioner was directed to deposit the pre-deposit amount within two weeks.

3. The court, after hearing arguments, upheld the appellate authority's discretion in passing the inter-locutory order. It found no legal infirmity in the decision, emphasizing the need for substantiating the petitioner's claim. The documents supporting the claim were required to be produced before the Appellate Authority for verification.

4. Despite the petitioner's submissions, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it with costs amounting to ten thousand rupees. The petitioner was directed to deposit the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per the Commissioner (Appeals) directions. Failure to deposit the costs would lead to listing the matter for further orders.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by the parties, and the court's decision based on the evidence and legal provisions involved in the case.