2023 (3) TMI 1469 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking withdrawal of writ application and prefer an appeal before the learned CESTAT - petitioner submits that they would be making the pre-deposit of the balance amount as mandated under Section 35(F) of the amended Excise Act, 1944 - realization of service tax dues - Assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 for which two separate proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Joint Commissioner, CGST - HELD THAT - The writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned CESTAT against the impugned orders within a period of 2(two) weeks from today and also make the necessary pre-deposit apart from other statutory compliances for maintaining the appeal. The respondents have already indicated that no coercive steps would be taken for a period of 2(two) weeks from today - However, if no appeal is filed within a period of 2(two) weeks from today, the respondents-Revenue would be at liberty to take steps for realization of the Service Tax dues. The writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to orders related to assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Quashing of orders in original, order in appeal, rectification of mistake, and recovery notice.
3. Seeking permission to withdraw the writ application to approach CESTAT for appeal with delay condonation application.

Summary:
The disputes in this case pertain to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, initiated by the respondent-Joint Commissioner, CGST. The petitioner challenged orders dated 24.01.2018, 16.02.2018, and 02.12.2020, along with a rectification of mistake order dated 09.10.2023. Additionally, the petitioner sought quashing of a recovery notice dated 16.11.2023 for the realization of Service Tax and penalties. The petitioner approached the High Court after the expiration of the limitation period, seeking permission to withdraw the writ application to file an appeal with the CESTAT. The Revenue agreed not to take coercive steps for two weeks if the petitioner withdrew the application and filed an appeal within that time frame.

The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, requested to withdraw the writ application to appeal to the CESTAT with a delay condonation application due to the threat of recovery. The Revenue, through counsel Mr. P. Datta, agreed not to take coercive steps for two weeks if the petitioner pursued the appeal. The petitioner committed to making the necessary pre-deposit as required under Section 35(F) of the amended Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the High Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the CESTAT within two weeks for appeal and pre-deposit, with an assurance from the Revenue not to take coercive steps during this period. If no appeal was filed within two weeks, the Revenue would be permitted to take steps for the realization of Service Tax dues. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.