Ms Deoraj Singh Through One Of Its Partners Sri Deoraj Singh vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise
Held
The Court held that the Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi, was obligated to decide the pending representation of the petitioner firm. The Court reasoned that it was appropriate for the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's request for treating the service tax paid by the sole proprietorship as paid by the partnership firm. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must dispose of pending representations within a reasonable time. The Court directed Respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi, to dispose of the petitioner's representation by way of a speaking order within four weeks from the date of receiving it. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Deoraj Singh, a partnership firm, took over a business previously run as a sole proprietorship. The main partner of the firm was the proprietor of the earlier business. Service tax for a certain period was paid under the name of the sole proprietorship. The partnership firm subsequently sought to have this tax treated as paid by the firm. A representation dated July 22, 2019, was submitted to the Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi, requesting this adjustment. This representation remained pending and undisposed of before the Commissioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi, is obligated to decide the pending representation of the petitioner firm regarding the treatment of service tax paid by the sole proprietorship as tax paid by the partnership firm? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that their representation, submitted on July 22, 2019, concerning the adjustment of service tax paid by the sole proprietorship to be recognized as paid by the partnership firm, was pending before the Commissioner and required a decision. The respondents did not present any arguments on this issue as recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 25 of 2020
M/s Deoraj Singh (a Partnership Firm), Ramgarh. …..... Petitioner Versus
Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi.
Additional Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi. …..... Respondents
-------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : M/s Mahendra Kumar Choudhary, Rakhi Sharma & Manav Poddar, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate ----------- 4/ 17.02.2020 The main partner of the petitioner firm was earlier running the business as the sole proprietorship business. Subsequently, a partnership firm was constituted and the proprietorship business was taken over by the partnership firm with all the assets and liabilities. However, the service tax for some period was being paid in the name of the sole proprietorship business, and not in the name of partnership firm. Subsequently the partnership firm claimed that the
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.