2019 (9) TMI 469 - AT - Service Tax

Recall of an order - rectification of mistake - non-speaking order - case of appellant is that the conclusion of this Bench that the appellant had rendered other than legal services is an apparent mistake - HELD THAT - There is no mention nor discussion as to the applicability or otherwise of various decisions relied on by the appellant in the impugned final order - There is no dispute that non-consideration of a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court is itself a mistake/error on the face of the very order which could be rectified. Apparently, there is no discussion also on various documents like invoices etc., relied on by the applicant and furnished in the paper compilation, suffice it to say that non-consideration of the same amounts to passing a non-speaking order. The impugned final order is recalled and the Registry is directed to relist the appeal for fresh hearing in due course - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Recalling of Final Order due to rectifiable mistakes.

Analysis:
The appellant sought the recalling of the Final Order passed by the Bench, alleging that it contained rectifiable mistakes. The senior advocate for the appellant argued that the conclusion that the appellant had rendered services other than legal services was a mistake. He contended that the appellant had provided legal services to clients, supported by invoices and agreements. Reference was made to Notification No.15/2002 and an order by the Delhi Bench of the CESTAT to support the argument that tax could not be levied for legal services rendered prior to August 2002. The appellant also presented documents showing legal services provided to various entities, which were allegedly not considered in the impugned order. The issue of revenue neutrality was raised, relying on a decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which was purportedly not considered, rendering the final order non-speaking and erroneous.

The departmental representative opposed the contentions, stating that the Bench had passed the final order after due consideration and there was no error apparent on the record. It was argued that any interference would amount to a review, which is impermissible under the law.

Upon considering the submissions and reviewing the impugned order, the Bench noted that various decisions and documents relied upon by the appellant were not discussed or considered in the final order. The Bench emphasized that non-consideration of judgments from higher courts and documents presented by the appellant could be rectified as it amounted to passing a non-speaking order. Citing precedents, the Bench concluded that the impugned final order needed to be recalled and reheard. Consequently, the Final Order was recalled, and the appeal was directed to be relisted for fresh hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of recalling a Final Order due to alleged rectifiable mistakes, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant arguments, decisions, and documents in reaching a decision. The Bench's decision to recall the order for fresh hearing was based on the failure to discuss crucial aspects and documents in the original order, highlighting the significance of providing a reasoned and speaking order in judicial proceedings.