9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is a proprietor of an establishment by name M/s. Swathi Constructions at Shoranur and is engaged in laying of power lines on behalf of persons, who had executed contracts with the Power Grid Corporation of India. 3. According to the petitioner, it had executed job works during various financial years and that all records and details were submitted to the jurisdictional officers under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as well as the Central Excise Act 1944. He further contended that after the coming into force of the CGST Act, an order was issued on 13.5.2019 levying penalty and service tax upon the petitioner under five different heads, imposing a huge liability upon the petitioner. Though the imposition of liability of service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in 2014 to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944, the power to waive the mandatory pre-deposit is no longer available and in several decisions the Supreme Court has categorically held that the High Court should not interfere with the mandate of the Statute. 6. The amendment was in fact considered by the Delhi High Court in [Dish TV India vs. Union of India and others in Manu/DE/1520/2020] and it was held that in view of the amendment there is no question of any waiver of pre-deposit. It was also observed that time and again the Supreme Court has reminded the High Courts not to interfere with stipulations of mandatory pre-deposits. 7. On a consideration of the rival contentions, it is understood that the limited relief sought for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entertained, and directions are issued for waiving the pre-deposit, there will be no end to such demands. Further if orders are issued, contrary to the Statute the same will destroy the very scheme of the Statute including the consequent amendment. 9. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of , the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Gujarat, [2017 (5) SCC 42, wherein it was observed that the High courts cannot disregard the statutory mandates. 10. Even in the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in [Pioneer Corporation Vs.Union of India [2016 (340) ELT 63 Delhi], the observations of the court indicates that the interference with the statutory mandates after amendment, must be do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
