9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 25 - HC - Service TaxRectification order - Recovery proceedings - maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT - Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Appellate authority, or in the alternative, to seek a rectification of Ext.P1 order before the Assessing authority itself, the writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P1 order, is dismissed. The recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Assessing authority/Appellate authority, in the meanwhile.
Issues:
Challenge against Ext.P1 order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirming demand of ?49,60,660 under Finance Act, 1994 - Availability of alternate remedy by way of appeal before Appellate Authority - Interference with Ext.P1 order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming a demand of ?49,60,660 along with interest and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994, related to service tax. Despite various contentions raised in the writ petition, the court noted that the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy available through an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The court found that the petitioner did not establish a case justifying interference with the said order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order, emphasizing the petitioner's right to approach the Appellate authority or seek rectification of Ext.P1 order before the Assessing authority itself. Additionally, the court acknowledged the petitioner's request for time to approach the Assessing authority/Appellate authority. In response, the court directed that recovery proceedings for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 should be suspended for a period of three weeks. This temporary stay aimed to facilitate the petitioner's engagement with the Assessing authority/Appellate authority during the specified duration. The court's decision to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance exemplified a balanced approach to allow the petitioner to pursue available legal remedies without immediate financial repercussions.
|
