Kartik Banerjee vs. Commissioner CGST And Cx

Held

The Court held that since an order of adjudication has been passed by the competent authority (Respondent No. 2), the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court directed that the petitioner should make the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the tax amount as stipulated by the amended provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act to obtain a stay of the impugned demand. The Court also addressed the issue of the lost login ID, stating that if such a request has been made by the petitioner, it should be considered by the competent authority without any delay. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach Respondent No. 2 after filing the appeal and making the necessary pre-deposit, seeking a recall of the Section 87 notices or for them to be kept in abeyance. The Court emphasized that such a request should be considered in accordance with law and expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Kartik Banerjee, is aggrieved by notices dated October 13, 2020, and November 6, 2020, issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, by Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Bokaro. These notices directed M/s Tata Steel, a service recipient of the petitioner, to withhold amounts due to the petitioner towards alleged government dues of Rs. 45,97,276/- for service tax. Subsequently, on December 30, 2020, Respondent No. 2 passed an adjudication order confirming the service tax demand of Rs. 45,97,276/-, imposing penalties under Sections 78, 77(2), and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994, and ordering interest. The petitioner also faced issues with his login ID and password for the department's portal, hindering his ability to make the pre-deposit required for filing an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, remain valid and enforceable after the passing of an adjudication order by the competent authority? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the supply of his login ID and password to facilitate the filing of an appeal and pre-deposit, given his inability to access his account? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Section 87 notices should be recalled or kept in abeyance even after the adjudication order, as they continue to cause financial harm by withholding payments from M/s Tata Steel. He also highlighted the issue of lost login credentials, preventing him from making the necessary pre-deposit for appeal. He relied on the amended provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for the stay of tax dues upon pre-deposit. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that once an adjudication order has been passed, the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and make the pre-deposit. They submitted that after filing the appeal and making the pre-deposit, the petitioner should request Respondent No. 2 to keep the Section 87 notices in abeyance or recall them. Regarding the login ID, the respondents stated that the request would be considered by the concerned authority without delay.