2021 (7) TMI 528 - HC - Service Tax

Consolidated application seeking leave to amend the petition and for interim relief - HELD THAT - It is not proper to file such consolidated application. In any case, on this occasion, we grant leave to the petitioners to amend the petition. Amendment to be carried out within three weeks and amended copies of the petition to be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondent within the same period. A stay is granted to the operation of the adjudication order dated 18/2/2021 subject to the petitioners depositing with the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax 10% of the demanded amount within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if there is failure to deposit within this period, then, the interim relief now granted will stand vacated without any further reference to this Court - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Consolidated application for amendment and interim relief in a petition challenging an adjudication order regarding service tax. Dispute over the percentage of demanded amount to be deposited for appeal. Granting stay of operation of the adjudication order pending deposit by the petitioners.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay considered a consolidated application seeking leave to amend a petition and interim relief. The Court allowed the amendment but expressed reservations about the consolidated application format. The petitioners were granted three weeks to carry out the amendment and provide amended copies to the respondent's counsel within the same period. Respondents were given four weeks to file any replies to the amended petition, with advance copies to be furnished to the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel stated representation for a newly impleaded respondent, the Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Goa.

In the context of the interim relief application, the Court deliberated on the adjudication order raising a demand for service tax payment by the petitioners. The petitioner argued that if a certain circular was struck down, the demand from the adjudication order would not stand. The petitioner sought a stay on the adjudication order, proposing to deposit 7.5% of the demanded amount. However, the respondent contended that 10% deposit was required for challenging the order before the Tribunal. The Court decided to grant a stay on the adjudication order, subject to the petitioners depositing 10% of the demanded amount within four weeks.

The Court clarified that the statutory provisions regarding deposit might not strictly apply to the proceedings as it was a Writ Petition. It emphasized the need for the petitioners to comply with the deposit requirement within the specified timeframe to maintain the granted interim relief. The parties were directed to complete pleadings in the main petition within two months, with the liberty to apply for a fixed disposal date thereafter. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Miscellaneous Civil Application in the aforementioned terms.