Mahesh Prasad Singh. vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax, Panaji And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court, with the consent of the contesting parties, disposed of the writ petition with an agreed order. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, before the Appropriate Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of the order. If filed within this period, the appeal would be considered and disposed of on its merits, irrespective of the limitation period. The amount already recovered from the Petitioner's bank account would abide by the final orders of the Appellate Authority. Crucially, the Appellate Authority was directed not to insist on any pre-deposit or deposit of the amount involved in the appeal, as the recovery already made would be considered compliance. The Petitioner was also allowed to annex a copy of the impugned order to the appeal memo without requiring a certified copy. All contentions on the merits of the matter were left open for the Appellate Authority to adjudicate. The Appellate Authority was directed to endeavor to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four months of its institution. The Court noted that this order was made in peculiar circumstances, including the lack of proof of service of the impugned order, and should not be treated as a precedent.

Facts

The Petitioner, Mahesh Prasad Singh, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging an order dated December 9, 2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa. The Petitioner contended that there was no proof of service of the impugned order upon him. The revenue authorities (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) had already recovered an amount from the Petitioner's bank account with HDFC Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3). After some arguments, the Petitioner and the revenue authorities agreed to a specific order to resolve the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order dated December 9, 2010, before the Appropriate Appellate Authority, and if so, under which provision? 2. Whether the appeal, if filed within the stipulated period, should be considered on its merits without being dismissed on grounds of limitation? 3. What should be the status of the amount already recovered from the Petitioner's bank account? 4. Should the requirement of pre-deposit or deposit of the amount involved in the appeal be waived, given that the amount has already been recovered? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought a mechanism to challenge the impugned order, highlighting the lack of proof of service. He relied on the liberty to institute an appeal and have it considered on merits, without pre-deposit, and for the recovered amount to abide by the appellate authority's decision. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities (Respondents No. 1 and 2) agreed to the proposed order, indicating their consent to the Petitioner instituting an appeal and having it decided on merits, with certain conditions regarding the recovered amount and pre-deposit.