M/S Om Shivam And Company vs. Central Excise And CGST

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Om Shivam And Company and its proprietor Shri Om Prakash Soni, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petition challenged an order or action by the Central Excise and CGST authorities. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners sought a waiver of the pre-deposit amount required for an appeal. The High Court heard the arguments from both the petitioner and the respondents (Central Excise and CGST).

Held

The Court held that it does not have the jurisdiction to direct the waiver of the pre-deposit amount. This decision is based on the amended provision contained in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance Act No. 2 of 2014, which came into force on April 1, 2014. The Court referred to its own judgment in M/s. Triputi Commodities Versus The Commissioner, CGST Commissionerat, Jaipur, which held that waiver of pre-deposit is not permissible under the scheme of the relevant provisions. Furthermore, the Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Chandra Sekhar Jha Versus Union of India & Anr., which, while dealing with the Customs Act, 1962, emphasized that in the absence of a specific provision reserving discretion for the appellate authority, the legislative intention is not to allow discretionary waiver of pre-deposit. The Court concluded that the petitioner's argument of hardship does not grant it the power to waive the statutory pre-deposit. The operative direction is that it remains open for the petitioner to seek restoration of the appeal along with the pre-deposit amount. The petition is dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to direct the waiver of the pre-deposit amount in an appeal, despite statutory provisions mandating it? (Question of law, concerning the interpretation of provisions related to pre-deposit and appellate powers). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court possesses ample jurisdiction to direct the waiver of the pre-deposit amount on grounds of hardship. They relied on the general discretionary powers of the High Court. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel (CGST), argued that waiver of pre-deposit is not permissible in light of the amended provisions and settled judicial pronouncements. They relied on the High Court's own judgment in M/s. Triputi Commodities and the Supreme Court's decision in Chandra Sekhar Jha Versus Union of India & Anr.