M/S Dr. Zakir Husain Institute vs. The Chief Commissioner And Ors

Held

The Court held that it would not directly interfere with the matter under its extraordinary jurisdiction as long as the assessment order dated September 14, 2016, remained in operation. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner might be correct in asserting the demand's unsustainability in view of the Tribunal's decision (Annexure P/9). However, it noted that the petitioner's request to disregard the assessment order and rely solely on the Tribunal's decision had been rejected by an order dated February 8, 2018. Therefore, the appropriate recourse for the petitioner was to file an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal against the assessment order within 30 days, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, taking into account the Tribunal's decision, and pass a speaking order. Crucially, all coercive steps for recovery were to be kept in abeyance until the appeal was decided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dr. Zakir Husain Institute, challenged an assessment order dated September 14, 2016, and subsequent recovery actions. The petitioner argued that a decision by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, Calcutta, dated August 23, 2017, rendered the demand unsustainable. However, the petitioner's claim to not implement the Tribunal's order was rejected by an order dated February 8, 2018. The petitioner approached the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction, seeking to prevent recovery based on the assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere in the matter exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, given that an assessment order dated September 14, 2016, is still in operation, despite a subsequent Tribunal order dated August 23, 2017, which the petitioner claims makes the demand unsustainable. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the demand raised and recovery in question are unsustainable in light of the law laid down by the Tribunal in Annexure P/9. They sought to prevent the implementation of the assessment order and the insistence on the demand. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the validity of the assessment order in light of the Tribunal's decision. The court's decision implies that the revenue's position was that the assessment order remained operative.