M/S Anil Kumar Suman, Proprietor - Sri Anil Kumar Suman vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anil Kumar Suman, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise Department. The appellate authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit, as stipulated under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (applicable to service tax via Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994), had not been made. The petitioner contended that this finding was incorrect, as the requisite deposit had indeed been made on September 10, 2024, evidenced by Annexure-11. The impugned order from the appellate authority was dated November 5, 2024.

Held

The Court held that the order passed by the appellate authority, dated November 5, 2024, could not be sustained. The Court found that the appellate authority's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal based on the non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit was erroneous, as the petitioner had demonstrably made the requisite deposit on September 10, 2024. Consequently, the appellate authority's order was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the appellate authority on September 1, 2025, for the authority to proceed with deciding the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, when the petitioner claims to have already made the deposit. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's finding of non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit was factually incorrect. They asserted that the required deposit had been made on September 10, 2024, and provided evidence for this. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal on this ground was unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and its authorities).