M/S. Kamaraj College Of vs. Superintendent

Held

The Court held that the original authority conducting denovo proceedings while the appellate authority is seized of the matter is unsustainable. The Court noted that the petitioner had complied with the pre-deposit condition. Considering these facts, the Court directed the CESTAT to dispose of the pending appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Until the disposal of the appeal by CESTAT, the respondents were directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kamaraj College of Engineering & Technology, challenged an order dated 03.05.2019 (O.C.No.271/2019) issued by the Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise. The college provides engineering education and also conducts training/coaching classes like Entrepreneurship Development, Placement Training, and Personality Development. A show cause notice was issued for non-payment of service tax on these coaching services. The original adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, but the Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the department's appeal, setting aside the original order and remitting the case for quantification of tax, interest, and penalties. The petitioner filed an appeal before CESTAT, Chennai, which is pending. Subsequently, the Superintendent issued the impugned order directing the petitioner to provide details of amounts collected for coaching services or a stay order from CESTAT, to proceed with denovo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the original authority can conduct denovo adjudication proceedings when the matter is seized by the appellate authority (CESTAT) and an appeal is pending before it? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the original authority conducting denovo proceedings while the matter is seized by the appellate authority is illegal and unsustainable. They argued that any order passed by CESTAT would affect their interests. They also highlighted that they had already paid the mandatory 10% pre-deposit. They sought a direction to the respondents not to take coercive steps until the CESTAT's decision. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, suggested that instead of granting an interim order, the Court could direct the CESTAT to dispose of the appeal within a time frame. They agreed not to take coercive steps until the appeal's disposal.