2019 (4) TMI 485 - HC - Service Tax

Proof of service of order - Held that - There is no proof of service of the impugned order dated 9 December 2010 upon the Petitioner. Accordingly, there is no question of this order being treated as some sort of precedent in any later cases - Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

Issues:
1. Granting liberty to institute an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Consideration and disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority.
3. Treatment of the amount recovered from the Petitioner's bank account.
4. Requirement of pre-deposit or deposit of the amount involved in the appeal.
5. Filing the appeal with necessary documents.
6. Adjudication of all contentions by the Appellate Authority.
7. Timely disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority.
8. Agreement based on instructions from respective parties.
9. Lack of proof of service of the impugned order.
10. Absence of precedential value of the order.

Analysis:

1. The judgment granted the Petitioner the liberty to institute an appeal in accordance with Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, against the impugned order dated 9 December 2010 within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment.

2. It was agreed that if the Petitioner files the appeal within the specified time frame, the Appellate Authority would consider and dispose of the appeal based on its merits and in accordance with the law without delving into the issue of limitation.

3. The judgment addressed the treatment of the amount already recovered by Respondents No.1 and 2 from the Petitioner's bank account, stating that it would abide by the final orders made by the Appellate Authority in the instituted appeal.

4. In consideration of the amount recovered, the Appellate Authority was directed not to insist on any requirement of pre-deposit or deposit of the amount involved in the appeal, thereby fulfilling the deposit/predeposit obligation.

5. The Petitioner was given the liberty to file the appeal against the impugned order by attaching a copy of the order dated 9 December 2010 to the Memo of Appeal, eliminating the need for a certified copy of the same.

6. All contentions of the parties regarding the merits of the matter were left open to be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority, ensuring a comprehensive review of the case.

7. The Appellate Authority was instructed to make efforts to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, ideally within a period of four months from the date of its institution, ensuring a timely resolution of the matter.

8. The agreement reached by the parties, including instructions from Mr. D. Gautam, Inspector GST, was the basis for the judgment, ensuring mutual consent and cooperation in the resolution process.

9. The judgment highlighted the lack of proof of service of the impugned order dated 9 December 2010 on the Petitioner, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the case and clarifying that the order should not be considered a precedent in future cases.

10. Finally, the rule was made absolute in the specified terms, with no order as to costs, and all concerned parties were instructed to act based on an authenticated copy of the judgment to facilitate compliance with the directives provided.

← Previous Next →