M/S.A.Savariraj vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner possesses an alternative appellate remedy before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation and shall dispose of it in accordance with the law within five months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.A.Savariraj, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-in-Original No.78/2023-ST dated 20.06.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Thanjavur Division. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested a fresh order considering an exemption under Entry 13(C) of the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST. The petitioner contended that they had undertaken construction of churches for religious institutions, which are exempted services. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, is liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's claim for exemption under Entry 13(C) of the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST? (Question of law and fact, turning on Notification No.25/2012-ST, Entry 13(C)). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the services rendered, being the construction of churches for religious institutions, are covered by the exemption under Entry 13(C) of Notification No.25/2012-ST, and the respondent erroneously passed the impugned order under the mistaken belief that the services were taxable. Respondent's contentions: The respondent contended that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act and that the petitioner should have availed this remedy instead of directly approaching the High Court.