M/S.Raju Enterprises vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redressal of its grievance. It directed that if the petitioner claims any exemption from the tax demand, it may move an application for exemption of payment of 7.5% before the appropriate authority. The Court further directed that such an application, if filed, shall be considered by the authority in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of filing. The period taken by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court, from 31.05.2018 till the date of the order, shall be taken into consideration for condonation of delay in filing any such application. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions. The Court did not decide on the merits of the tax demand or penalty.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, GST & Central Excise. This order demanded service tax of Rs. 53,12,284/- for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, along with an equal penalty. The petitioner sought to challenge this demand and penalty through the writ petition. The High Court considered the materials on record and the arguments presented by both parties.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redressal of its grievance against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, GST & Central Excise? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition, implying that direct recourse to an alternative remedy might not be adequate or that the grounds for challenge necessitate High Court intervention. Specific arguments regarding the merits of the tax demand or penalty were not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's contention: The opposite party (Revenue) argued that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, suggesting that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition directly. The judgment indicates that the Revenue's stance implicitly supports the availability of such an alternative path for dispute resolution.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
12.12.2018
Heard Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the opposite party No.2-Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, GST & Central Excise under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 wherein the authority has raised service tax of Rs.53,12,284/- for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and penalty of equal amount.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redressal of its grievance. If the petitioner is claiming any exemption from tax demand, it may move an application for exemption of payment of 7.5% before the appropriate authority. In the event such an application is filed, the authority shall consider the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application.
The period taken before this Court in pursing thi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.