2024 (7) TMI 187 - HC - Service Tax

Invocation of larger period of limitation under Proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - suppression of material fact by comparing the gross receipts declared in the income tax returns filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act and ST-3 returns filed under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Services Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994. The submissions made by the petitioner also indicate that there could be finer aspects of law, which may have to be settled in a case like the petitioner and therefore, it is best left to be decided by the authorities including the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction against the orders of the Tribunal, in case, the petitioner fails before the respondent as also before the Appellate Commissioner as also before the CESTAT. This Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original invoking larger period of limitation under Proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and confirmed demand; Allegation of suppression of material fact by comparing gross receipts in income tax returns and ST-3 returns; Disbelief of oral contract between petitioner and small clients; Existence of disputed questions of facts; Availability of alternate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994; Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority to decide on merits and finer aspects of law.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged Order-in-Original No.157/2022-ST, dated 30.12.2022, on the grounds of wrongly invoked larger period of limitation under Proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order assumed suppression of material fact by comparing gross receipts in income tax returns and ST-3 returns. The petitioner claimed services provided were exempted under Serial No.14 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012, seeking quashing of the order.

The respondent disbelieved the oral contract between the petitioner and small clients, leading to the production of declarations from clients which were also disbelieved. The Senior Standing Counsel argued the presence of disputed questions of facts, suggesting dismissal of the Writ Petition. It was contended that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Appellate Commissioner, urging the petitioner to pursue this remedy.

The judge considered arguments from both parties and concluded that even if the petitioner had a case on merits, it should be decided by the Appellate Authority as per the hierarchy prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994. The judgment emphasized that finer aspects of law should be settled by the authorities, including the High Court, in the appellate jurisdiction against orders of the Tribunal, in case of failure before the respondent, Appellate Commissioner, and CESTAT.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days. All issues, including those related to limitation, were left open, with no costs imposed. The judgment closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition, providing a pathway for further legal recourse within the statutory framework.