2020 (8) TMI 228 - HC - Service Tax

Request to postpone the recovery of service tax - pandemic COVID situation - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that Mr. Ghosh was able to raise the substantial question of law, which requires adjudication and considering the fact that in this pandemic situation there may be difficulties to participate in the adjudication proceeding, the respondent authorities shall not give effect to the impugned letter dated 22nd June, 2020 and the hearing may be deferred for the time being till the normal functioning is restored. In view of the fact that the affidavits have been exchanged by and between the parties, the matter may be listed for hearing on the first available working day in the month of September, 2020 - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for quashing demand letter dated 22nd June, 2020 in connection with W.P. 21714 (W) of 2019.
2. Request to postpone recovery of service tax based on a Co-ordinate Bench order.
3. Substantial question of law and jurisdictional issue raised in the writ petition.
4. Consideration of similar issues by different High Courts in India and the Supreme Court.
5. Decision to defer the hearing due to pandemic situation and difficulties in participation.
6. Listing the matter for hearing in September 2020 after exchanging affidavits.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed to quash the demand letter dated 22nd June, 2020, related to a previous writ petition. The basis for this application was a Co-ordinate Bench order from 17th March, 2020, requesting the authorities to postpone the recovery of service tax due to prevailing circumstances.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the writ petition raised a substantial question of law and a jurisdictional issue that needed to be addressed. It was highlighted that various High Courts in India were also examining the same issue, and a larger Bench of the Supreme Court was seized of the matter. Therefore, it was requested that the adjudication should be postponed until the Supreme Court's decision.

3. Acknowledging the significant legal questions raised by the petitioner's counsel, the court decided that the respondent authorities should not enforce the impugned letter dated 22nd June, 2020. It was noted that due to the pandemic situation, participating in the adjudication proceedings might be challenging, and thus, the hearing should be deferred until normal functioning is restored.

4. Considering that the parties had exchanged affidavits, the court scheduled the matter for a hearing on the first available working day in September 2020. This decision aimed to provide both parties with an opportunity to present their arguments effectively once the situation allowed for smoother court proceedings.

5. Therefore, the application, identified as CAN 3795 of 2020, was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the need to await the Supreme Court's decision on similar matters and ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.