M/S Anjani Kumar Singh C/O Medicine Palace vs. Addnl. Commissioner (Cco) Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the impugned order does not require interference in its writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant tender document before the competent authority or the High Court, despite it being crucial to establish their claim for exemption. The petitioner's counsel was unable to satisfactorily explain the withholding of these documents. Furthermore, the petitioner did not file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3 (FCI). The Court observed that the competent authority had relied on Supreme Court judgments, such as Commissioner of Customs(Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company, emphasizing that the burden to prove entitlement to tax exemption lies on the assessee. Since the petitioner failed to discharge this burden by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including the tender document, the benefit of exemption could not be extended. The Court dismissed the writ application, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue statutory remedies, with the competent forum to consider any limitation issues in light of the period spent before the High Court.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anjani Kumar Singh, a proprietorship concern, filed a writ application challenging an order dated March 21, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (CCO) of CGST and Central Excise. The order imposed Service Tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner was a handling and transport contractor for the Food Corporation of India (FCI). A show cause notice was issued on April 27, 2022, by the Superintendent of CGST, requiring the petitioner to submit various documents. The petitioner claims to have submitted all required documents, including written submissions asserting that their contract with FCI fell under an exemption notification. The impugned order, however, held that the payments received were for "taxable service" and imposed a Service Tax of Rs. 60,88,607/-, along with penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, read with the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order failed to consider their written submissions and exemption notifications, violating principles of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated March 21, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (CCO) of CGST and Central Excise, imposing Service Tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction for failing to consider the petitioner's written submissions and the relevant exemption notification regarding services by way of loading, unloading, packing, storage, or warehousing of rice, contrary to Article 366(29A)(b) read with Entry 54 of List II and Article 265 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and fair play by not considering the petitioner's written submissions and supporting documents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their contract with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) qualified for exemption under Entry 40 of Notification No. 04/2014 dated February 17, 2014. They contended that the impugned order failed to consider their written submissions and the documents filed, making it illegal and without jurisdiction. They also asserted that the order violated principles of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, pointed to the counter-affidavit of FCI, which stated that the approved transportation rates in the tender document were inclusive of all taxes, including GST. They argued that the petitioner was engaged in undue enrichment by collecting tax but not depositing it with the government. The revenue also highlighted that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant tender document before the assessing authority or the High Court, and did not file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit.