9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 637 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Recovery of tax arrears due to Central Government - HELD THAT - Considering that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal, it is not deemed appropriate to entertain the writ petition directly. The applicant-petitioner shall be liable to make pre-deposit cannot be a reason to bye-pass the alternative remedy. While disposing of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner is directed to make prayer before the appellate authority citing the aforesaid reasons seeking waiver of pre-deposit and also for appropriate interim relief. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) within a period of ten days from today along with a certified copy of this order. In the event, the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of filing of the said appeal.
Issues:
1. Challenge to notice for recovery of tax arrears under Section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Dispute regarding tax amount already paid by the petitioner. 3. Question of entertaining a writ petition directly when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. 4. Consideration of pre-deposit requirement before availing alternative remedy. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, M/s Rajdhani Security Services Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 14.07.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & CX, Bhubaneswar-I Division, for recovery of tax arrears amounting to ?60,81,615 under Section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner contended that it had already deposited ?25,39,927 for the relevant period, which was communicated to the authorities through challans. Despite this, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 14.07.2020, leading to the filing of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner submitted evidence of the tax amount already paid to the government treasury to the Superintendent (ADJN), GST, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar Range-IV. The Central Government Counsel argued that the impugned notice was consequential to the Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2017, which is appealable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner raised concerns about the timeliness of filing an appeal due to the delay in the impugned order. 3. The Court considered the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and deemed it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition directly. Emphasizing the requirement of making a pre-deposit before availing the alternative remedy, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within ten days, citing reasons for seeking waiver of pre-deposit and interim relief. 4. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 lockdown, the Court allowed the petitioner to utilize the soft copy of the order available on the High Court's website for filing the appeal. The appellate authority was instructed to consider the appeal, applications for interim relief, and waiver of pre-deposit within 60 days from the filing date, ensuring a timely resolution of the matter in accordance with the law.
|
