2015 (10) TMI 706 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Availability of alternate remedy - Held that - against order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the filing of an appeal before the Tribunal necessitates a payment of 10% of the tax confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P13 order, as a precondition for maintaining the appeal before the Tribunal. I find, however, that the said condition is not so onerous as would deprive the petitioner of an effective right of appeal against Ext.P13 order. This is more so because, when compared to the erstwhile provisions under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, governing service tax, the present requirement of depositing only 10% of the tax amounts confirmed against the petitioner, as a condition for maintaining the appeal, is fairly reasonable and imposes a lighter burden on an assessee. - The present writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P13 order, is hence dismissed as not maintainable. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to appellate authority's order, consideration of jurisdiction, plea of limitation

The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner was assessed to service tax by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, and subsequently appealed the decision. The Appellate authority rejected the appeal, leading to a challenge of this decision in a writ petition. The petitioner argued that both the adjudicating and appellate authorities failed to expressly consider the issue of jurisdiction as directed by a previous judgment. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the appellate authority did not address the plea of limitation raised.

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the Court observed that the petitioner had an effective alternate remedy available by appealing before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court acknowledged the requirement of depositing 10% of the tax confirmed against the petitioner as a precondition for maintaining the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Court deemed this condition reasonable and not overly burdensome, especially compared to previous provisions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the appellate authority's order, directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy of filing an appeal against the said order before the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily addresses the availability of an effective alternate remedy for the petitioner to challenge the appellate authority's decision. The Court emphasizes the reasonableness of the requirement to deposit 10% of the tax amount confirmed, deeming it a lighter burden on the assessee. The judgment underscores the importance of following proper appeal procedures and highlights the significance of considering jurisdiction and plea of limitation in administrative decisions.