2022 (7) TMI 982 - SC - Service Tax

Reopening of appeal - mechanism set up for getting approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court has agreed with the proposition that in view of the law laid down in Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. 2011 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT , the matters which were refused permissions by the CoD to pursue the appeal cannot be reopened. However, it is observed that everything will depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case - It has been found that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the CoD had granted an opportunity to the Revenue to challenge and refused the permission to the respondent-assessee. No doubt that Mr. Prasad submits that the permission granted was for the subsequent year and not for the same assessment year. However, it cannot be disputed that the issues in both the appeals of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee were interconnected. In the peculiar circumstances the High Court exercised its discretion to sub-serve the interest of justice. It cannot said that the discretion exercised by the High Court was exercised in a perverse or erroneous manner, to warrant interference in the appellate jurisdiction - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to High Court order allowing Writ Petition, Constitutional Bench judgment on Committee of Disputes mechanism, Finality of matters, Refusal to reopen cases by High Courts, Discretion of High Court in sub-serving justice.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the High Court order dated 29-1-2013, which allowed a Writ Petition filed by the respondent and set aside previous orders related to Service Tax Appeal No. 126/2008. The appellant's counsel referred to a Constitutional Bench judgment stating that the mechanism for approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was no longer valid. He argued that previous directions related to CoD approvals had been recalled by the Court. The counsel highlighted that several High Courts, following the judgment in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. case, had refused to reopen cases that had reached finality.

The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court agreed with the legal position established in the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. case, emphasizing that cases where CoD had denied permission to pursue appeals could not be reopened. However, the Court noted that each case's unique facts and circumstances would be crucial in determining the applicability of this principle. In this specific case, it was found that CoD had granted the Revenue an opportunity to challenge but refused permission to the respondent-assessee. The High Court, considering the interconnected nature of the issues in both appeals, exercised its discretion in the interest of justice.

The appellant's counsel argued that the permission granted by CoD was for a subsequent year, not the same assessment year. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged the interconnectedness of the issues in both appeals and upheld the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's discretion was not exercised in a manner warranting interference in their appellate jurisdiction and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The Court made no order as to costs in this matter.