Rajesh Bhatia vs. Suprerintendent Of CGST And Cx , Range-Ii, And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Rajesh Bhatia, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Howrah CGST & CX Committee. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench on 15.12.2022, primarily on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed 60-day limitation period for filing a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority failed to properly appreciate the scope of notification no.25/2012 Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012, and that they were only supplying trucks to the goods transport agency. The High Court noted that this was a factual matter requiring substantiation by records, not suitable for a writ petition based on affidavits.

Held

The High Court did not entertain the challenge to the adjudication order on the technical ground of limitation, acknowledging that the appellant should avail the alternate appellate remedy. While the learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition due to the delay, the High Court, considering the quantum of service tax demanded, granted an opportunity to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal. This was made conditional upon compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within 60 days from the receipt of the order's server copy, the appellate authority should consider it on merits, disregarding the limitation period, and decide the matter after affording a personal hearing. The Court explicitly stated that it had not delved into the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for the appellate authority to address.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the technical ground of limitation, despite the appellant's contention regarding the proper appreciation of notification no.25/2012 Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority erred in interpreting notification no.25/2012 Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012, and asserted that their business involved only the supply of trucks to goods transport agencies. They argued that this factual aspect was not properly considered. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondent CGST & CX authorities regarding the issues raised by the appellant. However, the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Bench implies that the revenue likely relied on the procedural bar of limitation and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.