2024 (1) TMI 1216 - SCH - Service Tax

Validity of the decision High Court deciding the appeal on admission state itself on merit - Substantial question of law - not permitting to raise the additional questions related to extended period of limitation to the appellant-Department for recovery of dues and for receiving penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - The High Court ought to have raised the substantial questions of law as sought for by the appellant herein in the first instance and thereafter considered the same on merits by answering the same one way or the other. This is said for the reason that when the appeals were admitted and the main appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court, it was unnecessary for the High Court to have passed detailed reasons as to why the aforesaid two substantial questions of law would not arise for consideration, at the stage of admission. No prejudice would have been caused to any of the parties if the substantial questions of law, as raised by the appellant, had been considered and answered by the High Court on merits at the time of final adjudication of the appeals. Sometimes substantial questions of law may have a bearing on each other and if a particular substantial question of law is not permitted to be raised at the stage of admission of the appeal, it may prejudice the case of the appellant while considering the case on merits. The portion of the order of the High Court declining to raise the substantial questions of law as sought for by the appellant-Revenue herein is set - aside and the High Court is now requested to hear the parties by raising the substantial questions of law on the issue of extended period of limitation as well as on the issue of imposition of penalty. The appeals are disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The limited issue in these appeals is the grievance of the appellant-Department regarding the High Court's refusal to permit raising two questions of law concerning the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty.

Extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty:
The appellant sought to raise additional questions regarding the Tribunal not allowing the extended period of limitation for recovery of dues and penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The High Court extensively considered these aspects and declined to raise the substantial questions of law at the admission stage, which the appellant contended was premature. The appellant argued that the High Court should have permitted the raising of substantial questions of law first and then considered them on merits during final adjudication to avoid prejudice. Consequently, the portion of the High Court's order declining to raise these substantial questions of law was set aside, and the High Court was directed to hear the parties on these issues and dispose of the appeals accordingly.

Final Decision:
The appeals were disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending appeal before the High Court. The High Court was instructed to raise the substantial questions of law concerning the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty, consider them on their merits, and decide the appeals in accordance with the law. Additionally, if the parties request an early hearing, the High Court was directed to consider such a request following legal procedures.