2021 (2) TMI 377 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal after compliance with the pre-deposit - stay of the tax dues - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - Since an order of adjudication has been passed by the competent authority/respondent no.2, petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal and make a pre-deposit for getting stay of the impugned demand. Needless to say, if such a request for supply of login ID has been made by the petitioner, the same should be considered by the competent authority / respondent no.2 in accordance with law, without any delay. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the respondent no.2 after filing of the appeal and the necessary pre-deposit of 7.5% for seeking a recall of the notices at Annexure-2 and 5 respectively or for keeping it in abeyance, which may be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed off.

Issues involved:
Challenge to notices under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994; Request for supply of login ID and password; Adjudication order imposing penalties and confirming service tax demand; Appeal process and pre-deposit requirements.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Notices under Section 87:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the notices dated 13th October 2020 and 6th November 2020 issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 to hold an amount due to the petitioner from M/s Tata Steel on account of Government dues of ?45,97,276. Respondent no.2, the author of the notices, passed an adjudication order on 30th December 2020 confirming the service tax demand and imposing penalties. The petitioner expressed concern that even if an appeal is filed and a stay is obtained, the notices would continue to withhold the amount due from M/s Tata Steel.

2. Request for Login ID and Password:
The petitioner had lost the login ID and password with the department, hindering the process of making a pre-deposit for filing an appeal against the adjudication order. Despite a request made through email on 14th January 2021 for the supply of the ID, there was no response from the department, causing further delay in the appeal process.

3. Adjudication Order and Appeal Process:
The adjudication order imposed penalties and confirmed the service tax demand, providing for an appeal within two months under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner was required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the tax amount for a stay of the tax dues as per the amended provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

4. Judgment and Resolution:
The Court directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal and make the necessary pre-deposit to obtain a stay of the impugned demand. It granted liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no.2 after filing the appeal and making the pre-deposit to seek a recall of the notices or keep them in abeyance. The Court emphasized that the request for the supply of the login ID should be considered without delay. The writ petition was disposed of without delving into the merits of the case, focusing on the procedural aspects and the appeal process.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily addressed the procedural aspects of challenging the notices, the appeal process, and the significance of making a pre-deposit for obtaining a stay of the tax dues. The Court emphasized the importance of following the appeal process and making necessary deposits while also highlighting the need for timely consideration of requests such as the supply of login credentials to facilitate the appeal process efficiently.

← Previous Next →