Cobra Personnel And Intelligence Service, Thr. Its Successor, Clayton Rodolfo Savio Fernandes. vs. Union Of INDIA, Thr. The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's representation dated 20 August 2016, despite being termed a representation by the Revenue, should be considered an application for rectification under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court noted that Section 74 does not mandate a specific format and that the proprietor was suffering from cancer at the time of making the representation. The Court was informed that this application had not yet been decided. Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Respondent-Authority to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 20 August 2016 within eight weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with the law. The concerned Authority was also directed to consider the details of the rectification sought as emphasized in the Memo of Petition. The preliminary objection regarding alternate remedy was thus addressed by directing the decision on the pending application.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Cobra Personnel & Intelligence Service, challenged an order dated 4 September 2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa, concerning the adjustment of a service tax installment. The Petitioner contended that a deposit of ₹11,20,101 was wrongly recorded as ₹1,20,101 due to a typographical error by the Respondents, leading to further liabilities. The Petitioner's proprietor was suffering from cancer at the time. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that an alternate remedy was available under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, for rectification of mistakes, or an appeal under Section 85. The Petitioner stated they had sought rectification on 20 August 2016, which remained undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's representation dated 20 August 2016, seeking rectification of a clerical error in the deposit amount, constitutes a valid application for rectification under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, despite the Respondents characterizing it as a mere representation. Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that their letter dated 20 August 2016 was indeed an application for rectification, and Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, does not prescribe a specific format. They emphasized that the proprietor was unwell when the representation was made. Respondents' contention: The Respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, for rectification of mistakes, or an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. They further contended that the document dated 20 August 2016 was more of a representation than a formal application.