Chhaya Bhatia vs. Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Sagar Kothari, challenged an order dated March 17, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Dehradun, which demanded ₹160,437/- as service tax for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, before the Commissioner, Central GST (Appeals), Dehradun. This appeal was partly allowed by an order dated December 5, 2023. The present writ petition challenges both the initial demand order and the appellate order. The respondents, represented by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Held

The Court held that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), passed on December 5, 2023, is appealable under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, before the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute this submission. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had approached a wrong forum initially, causing some delay. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Tribunal. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks from the date of the order, it shall be heard and decided on merits. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original demand or the appellate order, focusing solely on the procedural remedy available to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner, Central GST (Appeals) on December 5, 2023, is appealable before the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, and if so, whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to file such an appeal despite potential delay. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute the submission that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that there has been some delay in approaching the correct forum due to the petitioner's initial incorrect approach. The respondents' counsel argued that the appellate remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, is available and implied that the writ petition is not the appropriate forum.