M/S Piccadily Holiday Resorts Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court acknowledged that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was appealable, but the time limit for filing the appeal had expired. Recognizing that the petitioner had been pursuing the matter before the High Court, the Court directed that if the petitioner files the statutory appeal within one month from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merits. The Appellate Authority was specifically directed to examine the legality and propriety of the penalty equivalent to the amount of service tax imposed on the petitioner. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority was also mandated to specifically examine the petitioner's plea of discrimination, concerning the alleged non-levy of similar taxes on other similarly placed cinema halls. The appeal is to be decided within four months of its filing. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Piccadily Holiday Resorts Limited, is challenging an order dated September 12, 2017, passed by the Additional Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Chandigarh. This order confirmed a levy of service tax amounting to ₹1,61,53,949/- under Section 73 read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, a penalty of an equivalent amount of ₹1,61,53,949/- was imposed under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Two further penalties of ₹10,000/- each were also imposed. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court as the time limit for filing a statutory appeal had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the levy of service tax amounting to ₹1,61,53,949/- under Section 73 read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the imposition of an equivalent penalty under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, are legal and proper? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order confirming the service tax and imposing penalties. They also raised a plea of discrimination, arguing that similarly placed cinema halls were not subjected to such tax levies. The petitioner filed a writ petition as the statutory appeal period had expired. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue or respondents regarding the legality of the tax and penalty, or in response to the discrimination plea. The primary focus of the revenue's involvement appears to be in defending the order passed by the Additional Commissioner.