M/M Avantika Contractors (I) LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise And Ors

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed the Commissioner (Appeals) (respondent no.6) to hear and dispose of the pending appeals expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order. The Court noted that the hearing of the appeals was kept pending subject to the outcome of the present proceeding. Both parties were directed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeals. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide the maintainability of the notice dated 14.12.2018 or the merits of the Service Tax demands.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Avantika Contractors (I) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.12.2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Patna, to Axis Bank Ltd. This order directed the bank to discharge its obligation under a departmental letter dated 28.02.2018, pursuant to an adjudication order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax. The adjudication order raised demands for Service Tax against the petitioner under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994. Previously, the petitioner had approached the High Court challenging a notice under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue statutory remedies. The current writ petition seeks interim protection until the disposal of pending appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 14.12.2018, issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, for recovery of Service Tax demands, is maintainable when appeals against the original adjudication order and an earlier adjustment notice are pending before the Commissioner (Appeals)? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 and principles of statutory remedies). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that an appeal against an earlier adjustment notice dated 28.02.2018 was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) since 15.03.2018. Furthermore, an appeal against the Joint Commissioner's order dated 19.08.2016, which forms the basis of the impugned notice, was filed on 29.10.2018 and registered on 02.01.2019. The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued during the pendency of these appeals and sought interim protection until their disposal. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, through the learned Additional Solicitor General, argued that the issue had been previously considered by the Court and opposed the prayer for interim relief. They suggested that the parties should cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the pending appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).