2018 (1) TMI 1495 - HC - Service Tax

Compliance with the Pre-deposit - GTA services - HELD THAT - The petitioner is entitled to be heard by respondent No.3 for as per its plea HUL Limited has already discharged its liability towards GTA services, which allegedly cover even the service tax demanded from the petitioner, and the same has not been given credit to by respondent No.1, the petitioner may not be liable to pay further amount towards pre-deposit. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the plea of the petitioner and take a decision as to whether the appeal filed by it deserves to be entertained without pre-deposit, on the facts of the case - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grievance against the return of appeal by respondent No.3 without considering petitioner's plea.
2. Dispute over the payment made by the principal company covering service charges.
3. Entitlement of the petitioner to be heard regarding the pre-deposit amount.
4. Direction to respondent No.3 to consider petitioner's plea and decide on the appeal without pre-deposit.
5. Disposal of the Writ Petition and related interim relief application.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the return of the appeal by respondent No.3 without considering the petitioner's plea. The petitioner contended that its principal company had already paid a significant amount towards GTA services, including the service charges sought from the petitioner. The respondent's counsel disputed this claim. The Court, comprising Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy and Sri T. Amarnath Goud, JJ., opined that the petitioner should be given a chance to present its case. The Court noted that if the amount paid by the principal company is considered, the petitioner may not be liable to make any further pre-deposit. Therefore, it directed respondent No.3 to evaluate the petitioner's plea and make a decision on whether the appeal should proceed without the need for a pre-deposit.

The judgment emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to be heard on the matter concerning the payment made by its principal company. The Court highlighted that if the amount already paid covers the service charges in question, it could impact the petitioner's liability for pre-deposit. Consequently, respondent No.3 was instructed to thoroughly review the petitioner's contentions and determine the merit of the appeal without requiring any additional pre-deposit amount. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair consideration of the petitioner's case and the potential impact of the payment made by the principal company on the appeal process.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of based on the directions provided to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's plea regarding the payment made by the principal company. Additionally, any related interim relief application was deemed infructuous following the resolution of the Writ Petition. The judgment underscored the need for a thorough assessment of the facts presented by the petitioner to determine the applicability of the payment made by the principal company on the petitioner's liability, particularly concerning the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal process.