2018 (7) TMI 2138 - HC - Service Tax

Stay the implementation, operation and execution of the Order - restraint on the respondent from enforcing coercive recovery of the demand - HELD THAT - It is directed that there shall be stay of implementation, operation and/or execution of the order passed by the Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad, dated 29.12.2008 Order in Original, confirmed by the CESTAT, during the pendency and final disposal of Tax Appeal on condition that the applicant/ appellant shall deposit 25% of the demand with interest as on today with the Department, to be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. It goes without saying that the aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the main Tax Appeal - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Stay of tax order pending appeal, interim relief, deposit requirement

Stay of Tax Order Pending Appeal:
The appellant sought a stay on the implementation of a tax order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax and confirmed by the CESTAT. The High Court, after considering the controversy involved in the main appeal, granted the stay of implementation, operation, and execution of the order. However, the court imposed a condition that the appellant must deposit 25% of the demand with interest within four weeks from the date of the order. The stay was granted during the pendency and final disposal of the Tax Appeal, ensuring it was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties involved.

Interim Relief:
The appellant also requested ex-parte, ad-interim relief, which was not explicitly mentioned in the judgment. However, the court's decision to grant a stay on the tax order can be considered as providing interim relief to the appellant, allowing them to avoid coercive recovery by the tax authorities until the final disposal of the appeal.

Deposit Requirement:
The court mandated that the appellant must deposit 25% of the demand with interest within four weeks from the date of the order to avail the stay on the tax order. This deposit requirement was a condition imposed to secure the stay and ensure compliance with the eventual outcome of the appeal process. The judgment did not provide further details on the consequences of non-compliance with the deposit requirement or the specific process for making the deposit.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat granted a stay on the implementation of a tax order pending appeal, subject to the condition of depositing 25% of the demand with interest within four weeks. This interim relief was provided without prejudice to the rights of the parties involved in the main Tax Appeal, ensuring a fair and balanced approach to the legal proceedings.