M/S. Flight Raja Travels vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the Settlement Commission Bench should have considered their application for condonation of delay. The Court acknowledged that Rule 10 of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Procedure, 2007, likely required the Bench to address such applications. However, the Court was not inclined to keep the writ petition pending. Instead, it directed that the petitioner's application for condonation of delay be placed before the Bench of the Settlement Commission, Chennai. The Settlement Commission was ordered to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Settlement Commission on 19.02.2018, and the Commission was given three weeks thereafter to pass its order. Until such an order was passed, the respondents were restrained from taking any precipitative action against the petitioner without the specific leave of the Court.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Flight Raja Travels Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging several communications from various GST authorities. The core of the dispute stemmed from the rejection of their application for condonation of delay before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai. The petitioner had sought condonation for a delay of four days in payment of interest as directed by the Settlement Commission. The impugned communication from the Respondent-Commissioner (Investigation) dated 12.12.2017 conveyed the rejection of this application, instead of considering it. The petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission Bench should have taken up the matter and considered the delay, citing Rule 10 of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Procedure, 2007.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Settlement Commission Bench was legally obligated to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in payment of interest, as stipulated by Rule 10 of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Procedure, 2007? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Rule 10 mandates that the Bench shall dispose of settlement applications or matters arising therefrom as directed by the Chairman. Therefore, the circumstances leading to the delay in payment of interest should have been considered by the Settlement Commission, and the delay of four days ought to have been condoned. They contended that the Respondent-Commissioner (Investigation) wrongly rejected the application without taking up the matter for consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.