Jyotindra Prasad Singh vs. Commissioner Of Central G S T And Central Excise And Ors

Held

The Court held that while a remedy of appeal is available, it was appropriate to direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority within 30 days. The Court noted that prima facie, there was material on record (Annexures-2 series) indicating the petitioner had deposited Rs. 29,43,729/- against the demand of Rs. 32,36,120/-. Therefore, the Court directed that the pre-condition deposit for filing the appeal be dispensed with and not insisted upon. The Court also ordered that all coercive steps initiated against the petitioner be kept in abeyance until the appellate authority considers the stay petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Jyotindra Prasad Singh, a proprietary concern, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated August 26, 2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Begusarai. This order imposed a service tax liability and penalty of Rs. 32,36,120/-. 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. 29,43,729/- as service tax on various occasions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Begusarai, was validly passed after due notice to the petitioner, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notices and the revenue's assertion of an ex parte order due to non-appearance? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal against the assessment order, and if so, whether the pre-condition deposit for filing the appeal should be dispensed with, given the prima facie evidence of substantial tax deposit by the petitioner? (Question of law and procedure) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that notices were not received and that despite depositing a significant amount of tax, the assessment order was passed without considering these deposits. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the assessment order was passed after due notice and ex parte because the petitioner failed to appear before the assessing authority.