M/S. Prasanna Constructions (Now Closed) vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application dated February 15, 2024, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. This decision was based on the submissions made by the petitioner and a perusal of paragraph 4.2 of the Circular dated September 16, 2014, which deals with the recovery of amounts during the pendency of an appeal. The petitioner was instructed to submit a copy of the Court's order along with its application dated February 15, 2024, to Respondent No. 1, ensuring that the said authority provides the petitioner with due opportunity of hearing before passing orders. No issue was expressly left undecided; the court's direction effectively addresses the immediate grievance regarding the recovery proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Prasanna Constructions, is challenging proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Respondent No. 1) to attach its immovable properties and prevent the release of title deeds. These actions were taken to recover tax, penalty, and interest pursuant to an Order in Original dated January 30, 2013. The petitioner claims it was unaware of this order. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.No.37475 of 2022) challenging the adjudication order, which was dismissed on December 18, 2023, with liberty to file a statutory appeal. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal (No. 47/2023-(G)ST) before the Commissioner of GST and Customs Appeals (Respondent No. 2) on January 25, 2024, depositing 7.5% of the tax amount. This appeal is pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner was justified in initiating recovery proceedings, including attachment of immovable properties and retention of title deeds, when a statutory appeal against the adjudication order is pending before the appellate authority, and the petitioner has made the mandatory pre-deposit? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that as per Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated September 16, 2014, specifically paragraph 4.2, no coercive measures for recovery of the balance amount can be taken during the pendency of an appeal, provided the assessee has paid the stipulated pre-deposit (7.5% in this case) and submitted a copy of the appeal memo. The petitioner argued that it had fulfilled these conditions and had also approached Respondent No. 1 on February 15, 2024, requesting the withdrawal of the recovery proceedings, but received no response. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the petitioner's contentions on the circular or the pendency of the appeal.