Sodexo INDIA Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that relegating the petitioner to a further appellate remedy was not necessary at this stage. The Court ordered a limited remand to the Commissioner (Appeals-III) to revisit his decision. The reasoning was that the CESTAT decision in M/s. ICS Foods Pvt. Ltd. had indeed attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals-III) was directed to consider if this final decision was applicable to the petitioner's case and, if so, to pass an appropriate order reversing his earlier decision. If, after considering the ICS Foods decision, the outcome did not change, the Commissioner was at liberty to pass a fresh order, after which the petitioner could pursue their remedy before the Additional Secretary. The Court kept all contentions on merits open, limited to the remand. The Commissioner was directed to pass an order upon remand preferably within one month.

Facts

The petitioner, Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged an appellate order dated May 10, 2021, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), GST & CX, Mumbai. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority erred by not following a decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated April 12, 2018, in the case of M/s. ICS Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida. The Appellate Authority had deemed the CESTAT decision not final as the department had appealed it to the Supreme Court. However, the petitioner later informed the Court that the Supreme Court had dismissed the department's appeal on January 3, 2019, rendering the CESTAT decision final. The respondents did not dispute this fact but suggested the petitioner had a further appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was bound by the CESTAT decision in M/s. ICS Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida, dated April 12, 2018, given that the department's appeal against it to the Supreme Court was subsequently dismissed. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The Appellate Authority should have followed the CESTAT decision as it had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the department's appeal. The dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court validated the CESTAT's order, making it binding. Respondent's contention: While not disputing the finality of the CESTAT decision, the respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the Additional Secretary, where the same point could be raised.