9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 813 - HC - Service TaxDemand of service tax - time limitation - Section 73 of FA - case of petitioner is that there is not only delay of six months from conclusion of the argument till pronouncement of order but because of this delay gross errors have occurred in the order which has caused severe prejudice to the Petitioner - HELD THAT - The factum of delay of six months in passing the order after the hearing was concluded is not in dispute - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHIVSAGAR VEG. RESTAURANT VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI 2008 (11) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY had observed that the delay by the Adjudicating Authority in rendering its order nine months after the conclusion of the hearing has caused prejudice to the Petitioner as it has not considered the evidence produced in respect of return of goods within 180 days. The impugned order dated 12 July 2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of Respondent No. 2 - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in pronouncement of the order. 2. Errors in the impugned order due to delay. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an appellate remedy. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Pronouncement of the Order: The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Thane, citing a delay of six months from the conclusion of the hearing to the pronouncement of the order. The case referenced the decisions in Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs. Asstt. Commr. Of Income Tax and EMCO Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which highlighted that such delays could cause significant prejudice to the litigant. The Court observed that "justice delayed is justice denied" and emphasized that the litigants must have complete confidence in the results of litigation, which is compromised by excessive delays. 2. Errors in the Impugned Order Due to Delay: The Petitioner argued that the delay led to gross errors in the order, causing severe prejudice. Specific errors highlighted include the misapplication of legal provisions. For instance, the impugned order incorrectly cited Section 65(105)(zzzg) of the Finance Act, which pertains to 'Mailing List Compilation and Mailing,' instead of Section 65(105)(zzg), which relates to 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.' This misapplication was attributed to the delay in passing the order, leading to a mix-up between provisions and a resultant prejudice to the Petitioner. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Writ Petition: The Respondent contended that the Petitioner should raise these issues before the Appellate Authority and that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked merely due to the statutory pre-deposit requirement. However, the Court, referencing the cases of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant and EMCO Ltd., noted that undue delay in delivering judgments could be grounds to set aside the impugned order without relegating the Petitioner to the appellate remedy. The Court emphasized that the delay and resultant prejudice warranted the High Court's intervention. Conclusion: The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 12 July 2019, directing the Commissioner to take a fresh decision. The Court stressed the need for expeditious disposal of proceedings to ensure that all submissions are duly considered, thereby maintaining litigants' confidence in the judicial process. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the Commissioner on 24 February 2020 for further proceedings. The observations made were limited to the need for expeditious disposal and related prejudice, without reflecting on the merits of the controversy. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
