2015 (1) TMI 998 - HC - Service Tax

Storage and warehouse charges - Assessee stopped paying service tax that there was litigation on issue storage and warehouse charges collected by them - Whether the impugned judgment and order has been passed in accordance with law or not? - Held that - Tribunal has not decided the matter on merit and as a matter of course the appellant was imposed with the liability on the basis of an alleged admission. We think that this is not the way to adjudicate the matter. At the time of final hearing, the learned Tribunal is obliged to consider the contention raised by the appellant either to reject or accept the same. This must be done with proper application of mind and reasons. This course of action has not been followed. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the impugned judgment and order has been passed in accordance with law or not?

Analysis:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice Sanjay Kumar, admitted the appeal based on the substantial question of law regarding the legality of the impugned judgment and order. The Court observed that the Tribunal had not decided the matter on merit but imposed liability on the appellant solely on the basis of an alleged admission, which the Court deemed inappropriate. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have considered the contentions raised by the appellant during the final hearing, either accepting or rejecting them with proper application of mind and reasons, which was lacking in the Tribunal's approach.

The Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to reexamine the matter on merit, providing reasons and considering the appellant's contentions. However, the appellant was required to deposit the tax component within three weeks from receiving the order for the fresh hearing to proceed. Failure to make the deposit would result in the dismissal of the appeal, reviving the impugned judgment and order. If the deposit was made, the appeal was to be heard within two months from the date of deposit by the appellant. The Court disposed of the appeal without any order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of the appellant's contentions and proper application of mind in adjudicating the matter.