2014 (2) TMI 532 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - principle of natural justice - CESTAT directed that the petitioner shall remit the entire assessed liability to the credit of the revenue - business of providing Multi-System Operator (MSO) services to the Cable Operators. - Held that - Having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner s application to receive the additional evidence and additional grounds are also numbered and in fact the said applications were listed for hearing on 9-7-2013 it appears to us that the Tribunal below ought to have considered the same and passed orders thereon before taking up the Stay Application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-consideration of the petitioner s application to receive the additional evidence in spite of the fact that it is listed for hearing, caused grave prejudice to the case of the petitioner - matter remanded back to tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the petitioner to pay Service Tax and Educational Cess under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for a specific period.
2. Appeal against the Order-in-Original and Stay Application filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Disposal of the Stay Application by the CESTAT and subsequent filing of a Writ Petition.
4. Allegations of improper consideration of additional evidence applications by the Tribunal.
5. Challenge to the sustainability of the impugned order and the need for fresh consideration of applications.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner was held liable to pay a substantial amount towards Service Tax and Educational Cess for a specified period by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. The Order-in-Original dated 30-9-2010 determined this liability along with a penalty equal to the service tax amount.

2. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed an appeal and a Stay Application before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to remit the entire assessed liability within a specified time frame, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition against this decision.

3. The High Court heard arguments from both parties, highlighting the petitioner's contention that the Tribunal should not have delved into the case's merits at that stage. The petitioner raised concerns about the Tribunal's handling of additional evidence applications and the passing of the impugned order without due consideration of relevant factors.

4. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievances regarding the Tribunal's approach, noting that certain applications were not properly addressed before the Stay Application was decided. The failure to consider the petitioner's requests for additional evidence and grounds caused prejudice to the petitioner's case, leading to a decision to set aside the impugned orders and direct a fresh consideration of the applications.

5. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the Writ Petition with a directive for the Tribunal to reexamine the applications promptly, granting the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution, preferably within eight weeks, and closed any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the Writ Petition.