Manoj Kumar Shah vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court directed the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the petitioner's appeal, preferably within a period of two months. Regarding the petitioner's prayer for liberty to deposit the money in installments, the Court noted that the petitioner had clearly stated in his pleadings that the money was debited from his personal account and credited to the respondents. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner could not subsequently seek liberty to deposit the money in installments. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner succeeds in his appeal, the deducted money would be refunded in terms of the appellate authority's order. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Shah, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking directions for the early disposal of his appeal pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). This appeal was against an order dated January 24, 2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax. The petitioner also sought liberty to make a representation for depositing the disputed amount in installments. Crucially, the petitioner alleged that the State Bank of India, Krishnapuri Branch, debited Rs. 17,29,670/- from his personal account based on a notice dated June 26, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Patna, under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, during the pendency of his appeal, without prior notice. The petitioner later stated the money was on hold.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the early disposal of his appeal filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against the order dated January 24, 2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to liberty to make a representation before the concerned authority for depositing the disputed amount in installments, especially considering the debit of Rs. 17,29,670/- from his personal account? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner was pending and sought its expedited hearing. He also contended that the amount of Rs. 17,29,670/- was arbitrarily debited from his personal account by the bank acting on a notice under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, without prior notice, and sought liberty to make a representation for installment payments. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents regarding the petitioner's claims. However, the Court's observations suggest a reliance on the petitioner's initial pleadings regarding the debit from his account.