2020 (11) TMI 584 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of appeal preferred by the respondent against an order of assessment under the Finance Act, 1994 - amnesty scheme in vogue - According to the petitioner, if he had been informed of the appeal having been preferred by the revenue, when the amnesty scheme was in vogue, he would have applied for the Amnesty scheme with a view to put the quietus to the matter and would not have had to contest the appeal preferred by the revenue - HELD THAT - The petitioner has no statutory right to be informed of an appellate right exercised by the revenue, before a communication to that effect is sent to him by the appellate authority prior to the hearing of the appeal. The petitioner cannot also be seen as prejudiced in any manner merely because the intimation of the revenue appeal was received by him after the expiry of the amnesty scheme. His option for the amnesty scheme was not dependent upon whether or not the revenue preferred an appeal against the order of the assessing authority. The petitioner has not made out a case for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to quash Ext.P3 appeal under Finance Act, 1994 - Benefit of Amnesty Scheme - Non-intimation of appeal by revenue - Prejudice due to lack of information - Statutory right to be informed of appellate right by revenue.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash Ext.P3 appeal filed by the respondent against an assessment order under the Finance Act, 1994, related to Service Tax. The petitioner claimed that had he been informed about the appeal, he would have utilized the Amnesty Scheme to settle the liability. Despite the adverse order, the petitioner did not appeal but paid the tax amount to resolve the matter. The revenue's appeal, filed within the statutory period, without notifying the petitioner, caused grievance as he missed the opportunity to benefit from the Amnesty Scheme.

The Court considered the arguments presented and determined that the petitioner does not possess a statutory right to be informed of the revenue's appellate actions before formal communication. The delay in receiving information about the appeal did not prejudice the petitioner, as his eligibility for the Amnesty Scheme was not contingent upon the revenue's decision to appeal. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for the relief sought in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner's case lacked merit.

This judgment highlights the importance of statutory rights, the significance of timely information in legal proceedings, and the necessity for parties to establish substantial prejudice to warrant legal remedies. The decision emphasizes that the availability of certain schemes or benefits cannot be solely dependent on external actions beyond the control of the concerned party.