M/S Spring Board Academy vs. The Commissioner Central Excise And Central Goods And Service Tax

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the final order passed by the revenue authority. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all their arguments, including those based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Parijat Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik, and the issue of the competence of the authority in invoking Section 11B of the Act. The appellate authority is to decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of its filing. The issue of whether the writ petition should have been entertained was decided in favor of directing the petitioner to the appellate authority.

Facts

M/s Spring Board Academy (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated April 5, 2019, issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Jaipur. The notice proposed rejection of the petitioner's refund claim of Rs. 3,42,383/- on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to Service Tax matters. The petitioner received the notice at 6:00 PM on May 22, 2019, the same day they were required to appear for a hearing. A final order forfeiting the refund was passed on the same day, though dispatched on May 24, 2019. The petitioner argued that no adequate opportunity for hearing was provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the final order passed by the revenue authority? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be entertained, despite the availability of an appeal, as the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Parijat Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik, 2018 (9) G.S.T.L.8 (Bom.). They also contended that the final order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, as the show cause notice was received on the same day the hearing was scheduled, and the final order was passed subsequently. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.