Sri Digambar Singh Bisht vs. Central Board Of Indirect Tax And Customs

Facts

The petitioner, a civil contractor registered with the Service Tax Department, was aggrieved by an order passed by the Superintendent, Service Tax, Haldwani, under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (Appeals), Dehradun. However, the appeal was dismissed because the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not met. The petitioner contended that he had deposited the required amount but inadvertently used the GST portal instead of the Central Excise and Customs portal. The Revenue stated that circulars mandated the use of the ICEGATE Portal for pre-deposit. The Court considered multiple writ petitions with identical issues.

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an application for restoration of their appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). This liberty was conditional upon the petitioners depositing the required pre-deposit amount through the ICEGATE Portal. If the petitioners complied with this condition and filed the application for restoration within four weeks from the date of the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide on the restoration within four weeks thereafter. Regarding the refund of the amount already deposited by the petitioners through DRC-03 (presumably the GST portal), they were granted liberty to move an appropriate application for refund, and the competent authority would decide such application as per law. The Court did not explicitly decide whether the initial deposit was valid compliance but provided a procedural path forward.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's deposit of Rs. 56,650/- on 13-07-2022 through the GST Portal, instead of the ICEGATE Portal, constitutes compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the purpose of hearing his appeal on merits? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the amount required for pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was deposited. The use of the GST Portal was an inadvertent mistake due to ambiguity in the law, and the Appellate Authority should not have dismissed the appeal solely on this ground. Revenue's contention: The Revenue submitted that circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) stipulated that the pre-deposit amount must be deposited through the ICEGATE Portal. The petitioner's deposit through another portal was not in compliance with these directives. However, the Revenue had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to make the prescribed pre-deposit through the ICEGATE Portal and then seek restoration of the appeal for rehearing.