Sengappa Naicker Veluchamy vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Sengappa Naicker Veluchamy, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No.MDU-ST-COM-09-2021 dated 17.02.2021, passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise. This order levied service tax, along with interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that as a Government contractor, he is exempt from service tax on contract works. The petitioner also stated that he could not file an appeal immediately due to suffering two heart attacks, and the appeal period had expired. The impugned order was passed by the respondent authority.

Held

The Court acknowledged the prima facie merit in the petitioner's contention that he might be entitled to exemption as a Government contractor. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was appealable, and the time limit for filing an appeal had expired. As a special case, considering the petitioner's submission of health issues and the potential merit of his claim, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. This appeal is to be entertained within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, irrespective of the limitation period. The petitioner is required to make a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the disputed tax amount before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence and demonstrate his entitlement to the exemption. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a Government contractor, is entitled to exemption from service tax on contract works under the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST, specifically referring to Entries 12(e), 13(a), and 25(a)? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that he is a Government contractor and therefore entitled to exemption from service tax on contract works, citing specific entries in the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST. He also presented a reason for the delay in challenging the order, citing health issues. Respondent's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent regarding the merits of the exemption claim. The respondent's counsel was present, but their submissions on the core issue of exemption are not detailed.