Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1117 - HC - Service TaxIssues: 1. Timeliness of filing the Writ Petition challenging the impugned Order in Appeal No.055/2023-MDU-ST-APP dated 30.10.2023. 2. Dismissal of the Appeal due to limitation grounds based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. 3. Requirement of the petitioner to deposit additional disputed tax amount to entertain the Appeal and dispose of the same on merits. 4. Direction for the first respondent to take up the appeal, dispose of it on merits, and comply with the prescribed time frame. Analysis: 1. The Writ Petition challenging the impugned Order in Appeal was filed on 14.06.2024, which was significantly delayed after the communication of the order to the petitioner. The Appeal in question was against the Order-in-Original No.MAD-ST-ASC-33/2022-ST dated 03.03.2022, passed by the second respondent, and was dismissed. The delay in filing the Writ Petition raised concerns regarding the timeliness of the petitioner's action. 2. The dismissal of the Appeal was based on the grounds of limitation as the petitioner failed to file the statutory appeal in time before the first respondent. The decision cited the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling was considered relevant. The Appellate Commissioner's decision was deemed in line with the prescribed limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Despite the limitation issue, it was acknowledged that the petitioner might have a valid case on merits. The petitioner had already deposited 7.5% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the Appeal. However, to further entertain the Appeal and dispose of it on merits, the petitioner was directed to deposit an additional 17.5% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the receipt of the order. This deposit was set as a condition for the first respondent to proceed with the Appeal without considering the limitation aspect. 4. The judgment directed the first respondent to take up the Appeal, consider it on merits, and ensure its disposal in accordance with the law within three months from the receipt of the order. The decision aimed to balance the requirement of adhering to statutory limitations with the petitioner's opportunity to present their case fully. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the specified directions, without any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.
|