M/S Tsr Resources Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s TSR Resources Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated December 26, 2022, passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate. This order confirmed a service tax demand of ₹1,93,28,142.00 for the periods 2015-16 and 2016-17 (up to June 2017), along with interest and penalties, under the Finance Act, 1994. Previously, an order-in-original dated March 02, 2022, for the same period was set aside by the High Court, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The petitioner had argued that the demand was barred by limitation. However, the respondent overlooked this objection, leading to the impugned order.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order-in-original dated December 26, 2022, is an appealable order under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted that the question of whether the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, would be attracted or not requires consideration, but declined to decide this in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to avail its appellate remedy before the appropriate appellate authority. All contentions raised by the petitioner were kept open for consideration by the appellate authority. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-original dated December 26, 2022, passed by the respondent is beyond jurisdiction as it was passed beyond the period of limitation, thereby attracting or not attracting the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction because it was passed beyond the period of limitation. They contended that their objection regarding limitation was overlooked by the respondent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the limitation issue. However, the revenue's action in passing the order implies a contention that the demand was not barred by limitation or that the proviso to Section 73(1) was attracted.