M/S Skyway Infrastructure PVT. LTD. Lucknow Thru. Director Sri Rajesh Pandey vs. U.O.I. Thru. Prin. Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise,Lucknow And Another
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding the internal dispute causing the failure to make the pre-deposit. It also noted the petitioner's undertaking to make the required pre-deposit by 24.11.2022. Consequently, the Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal with proof of this deposit by the stipulated date, the Tribunal shall recall its order dated 06.12.2021. The Tribunal is then to proceed with hearing the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court provided a clear path for the petitioner to pursue their appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Skyway Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.12.2021. This order had rejected their appeal, which stemmed from an Order-in-Original no.06/PC/2020-2021 dated 14.01.2021. The rejection was solely on the grounds of the petitioner's failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit as stipulated under Section 35F of the erstwhile Central Excise Act. The petitioner attributed this failure to an internal dispute among the company's directors. They expressed willingness to make the required pre-deposit by 24.11.2022.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal before the Tribunal should be heard on merits despite the petitioner's failure to make the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, given the stated internal dispute. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the failure to make the pre-deposit was due to an internal dispute between the directors managing the company's affairs. They stated their readiness to comply with the pre-deposit requirement by 24.11.2022 and sought to have their appeal heard on merits. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent. However, the impugned order itself was passed by the appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit provision.
Sections Cited
Section 35F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 128 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Skyway Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Director Sri Rajesh Pandey Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Prin. Commissioner, Cgst And Central Excise,Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Sinha,Anita Singh,Ashok Kumar Mishra,Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Dipak Seth Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.12.2021 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner arising out of Order-in-Original no.06/PC/2020-2021 dated 14.01.2021 was rejected on the ground of failure to pay the pre- deposit as is required to be done under Section 35F of the erstwhile Central Excise Act.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the ground of internal dispute between the Directors managing the affairs of the company, the deposit could not be made, however, he states that he is ready and willing to make the pre-deposit as is required under the Act on or before 24.11.2022.
In view thereof, in case the petitioner approaches the Tribunal alongwith a copy of the said deposit as is required to be made on or before 24.11.2022, the Trib
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.