Nizam Shamsudin Ladgi. vs. Commissioner Of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Panaji And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation with supporting documents to the Competent Authority of the respondents within four weeks. The Competent Authority was directed to examine this representation and take an appropriate fresh decision in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by previous orders of the Commissioner and the Tribunal which were passed for want of jurisdiction. The Court also directed that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner concerning the impugned demand notice until a decision on the representation is taken, which should be within eight weeks of receiving the representation. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim but provided a procedural avenue for its resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, Nizam Shamsudin Ladgi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 31, 2014, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (VCES Cell), Panaji, Goa, and a subsequent demand notice dated December 21, 2017, issued by the Superintendent of CGST Range-1, Bicholim, Goa. The petitioner contended that he had already deposited half of the amount before the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) came into force and the balance amount was deposited after the impugned order was passed. Therefore, he argued that the demand notice was unsustainable. The respondents are the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax & Ors.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated December 21, 2017, issued by the Superintendent of CGST Range-1, Bicholim, Goa, is sustainable in light of the petitioner's contention that the entire amount, including interest, has been deposited. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he had made substantial payments prior to and after the relevant scheme, rendering the subsequent demand notice invalid. He relied on his deposit of the amounts to support his claim. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that if the petitioner submitted a detailed representation with supporting documents regarding his claim of full deposit with interest, the Competent Authority would consider it and pass a fresh decision. They did not argue against the petitioner's claim on merits but agreed to a procedural resolution.