Tvl S Mariappan vs. The Commissioner (Appeals)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.S.Mariappan, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent the Additional Commissioner (3rd respondent) from redoing assessment proceedings for the years 2014-15 to 2017-18. This action was based on a direction from the Commissioner (Appeals) (1st respondent) in an order dated 19.02.2025. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). This current writ petition was filed because, while the appeal was pending before CESTAT, notices were issued for redoing the assessment. The petitioner argued that this was contrary to a previous High Court order dated 18.03.2026 in WP(MD) No.7385 of 2026, which had directed the petitioner to file the appeal to CESTAT and that it should be entertained on its merits.

Held

The Court held that the respondents should continue further proceedings, if any, only after the disposal of the appeal filed before the CESTAT. The Court noted that the appeal, bearing Appeal No: ST/40376/2026-ST[SM], had been taken on file after the petitioner duly made the pre-deposit. The Court observed that the notices for redoing the assessment were issued by the respondents in the interregnum, before the appeal was numbered and taken on file. Considering that the appeal is now on file, the Court directed that any further proceedings by the respondents should be contingent upon the outcome of the CESTAT appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents can initiate fresh assessment proceedings for the years 2014-15 to 2017-18 when an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is pending before the CESTAT, and in light of a previous High Court order directing the appeal to be filed and entertained? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents were proceeding to redo the assessment proceedings despite a prior order from this Court in WP(MD) No.7385 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026. This order had directed the petitioner to file an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, within two weeks, and stipulated that the appeal should be treated as filed within time and entertained on its merits. The petitioner complied with this direction, but the respondents issued notices for redoing the assessment in the interim. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the notices for redoing the assessment were issued before the appeal was formally numbered and taken on file by the CESTAT.