2018 (7) TMI 1637 - HC - GST

Appeal of order - Held that - Since the petitioner has been pursuing the matter before this Court, it is directed that if petitioner files the statutory appeal within one month, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the same on merits - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax levy and penalty imposition under CGST Act, 2017.
2. Timeliness of filing appeal and directions for Appellate Authority consideration.
3. Examination of legality and propriety of penalty and plea of discrimination.

Confirmation of service tax levy and penalty imposition under CGST Act, 2017:
The High Court judgment pertains to the confirmation of a service tax levy amounting to ?1,61,53,949 under Section 73 read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, along with an equivalent penalty imposition under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, two penalties of ?10,000 each were imposed on the petitioner. The order was challenged by the petitioner, leading to the High Court's examination of the matter.

Timeliness of filing appeal and directions for Appellate Authority consideration:
Although the order was appealable, the petitioner had missed the time limit for filing the appeal. However, considering the petitioner's pursuit of the matter before the High Court, it was directed that if the petitioner files the statutory appeal within one month, the Appellate Authority must consider and decide the appeal on its merits. The Appellate Authority was specifically instructed to examine the legality and propriety of the penalty equivalent to the service tax amount imposed on the petitioner, as well as the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner regarding other Cinema Halls in similar situations. The appeal was mandated to be decided within four months from the date of filing.

Examination of legality and propriety of penalty and plea of discrimination:
The High Court disposed of the petition with the above directions, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination by the Appellate Authority regarding the legality and propriety of the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Furthermore, the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner, asserting that other Cinema Halls in similar circumstances were not subjected to the same tax levy, was to be specifically scrutinized by the Appellate Authority. The judgment focused on ensuring a fair and comprehensive review of the penalties and addressing any potential discriminatory practices in the taxation of Cinema Halls.