R Janaki vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, R. Janaki, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order in Original (OIO) dated 07.02.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise. This OIO confirmed a demand of Rs. 18,23,083/- towards service tax and relevant cess, which the petitioner allegedly failed to pay for the period from October 2014 to 30.06.2018. The demand was raised through a show cause notice dated 31.12.2020, invoking the extended period of limitation. The petitioner contended that she had a fair case on merits. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, suggested passing conditional orders. The petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court, considering the submissions of both parties, decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount in cash within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance with this condition, the impugned Order in Original dated 07.02.2022 was quashed. The case was remitted back to the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner) to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the original show cause notice dated 31.12.2020. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days, and the second respondent was to pass a final order expeditiously, preferably within three months. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the proceedings, failing which the second respondent could pass orders based on available materials. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the petitioner's case, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order in Original No.MAD-ST-ASC-73-2022 dated 07.02.2022, confirming a demand of Rs. 18,23,083/- for service tax and cess for the period October 2014 to 30.06.2018, is sustainable in law? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that she had a fair case on merits against the demand confirmed by the impugned order. No specific provision of law or precedent was cited by the petitioner in the judgment. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that conditional orders may be passed. They did not elaborate on the merits of the case or the legal basis for the demand in the provided text.