M. K. Enterprises vs. Commissioner Of Central G S T And Central Excise And Ors
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notices and the revenue's assertion of ex parte assessment. However, upon reviewing the documents, specifically Annexures-2 series, the Court found prima facie evidence of the petitioner depositing Rs. 22,45,579/- against the demand of Rs. 27,00,171/-. Given that an alternative remedy of appeal is available, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority within 30 days. Crucially, considering the prima facie evidence of tax deposit, the Court dispensed with the pre-condition of deposit for filing the appeal. All coercive steps against the petitioner were ordered to be stayed until the appellate authority considered the petitioner's stay application.
Facts
M. K. Enterprises, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated August 23, 2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Begusarai. The order imposed a service tax liability of Rs. 27,00,171/- and an equal penalty. The petitioner claimed they did not receive notices and had deposited tax, evidenced by Annexures-2 series. The revenue contended that the order was passed ex parte after due notice, as the petitioner failed to appear. However, the Court noted from Annexures-2 series that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 22,45,579/- as service tax on various occasions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order was passed without proper notice to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, and whether the petitioner's claim of having deposited tax was considered? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: Notices were not received, and despite documentary evidence of tax deposits, the assessment order was passed without considering these facts, leading to an erroneous demand. Revenue's Contention: The assessment order was passed after due notice to the petitioner, and since the petitioner did not appear, an ex parte order was justified.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9562 of 2018 ====================================================== M. K. Enterprises, a partnership firm having its office at IOCL Gate No. 10, Barauni Refinery, District Begusarai through its partner Narendra Kumar Singh, Son of Shri. Ram Chandra Singh, resident of Vill & P.O. Keshawe, P.S. Barauni, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
Commissioner of Central G S T & Central Excise, Patna II Commissionrate having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg Patna.
Joint Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg Patna.
Asst. Commissioner of Central GST & CX Begusarai having its office at 2nd Floor, Power House Road, Begusarai.
Superintendent, Central Excise and Service Tax Range, Begusarai. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mr. Sadashiv Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE 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 Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.