Ramadas .K.A vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court directed the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (A.No.90/2023-ST) expeditiously, preferably within six months, subject to defenses available to the Revenue. Regarding the refund, the Court noted that the petitioner was only required to deposit Rs. 54,785/-. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to refund the balance amount of Rs. 14,16,115/- (Rs. 14,70,900/- – Rs. 54,785/-) to the petitioner. However, this refund was made conditional upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance amount to secure the interest of the Revenue. The Court did not explicitly decide on the issue of whether the order was duly served, but proceeded to grant relief based on the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, K.A. Ramadas, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 14,16,116/- recovered from his bank account. The petitioner claimed that he never received the show cause notice or the Order in Original (No.71/22-ST dated 15.03.2022) that preceded the recovery. The revenue contended that the order was despatched to the petitioner's registered address and was therefore deemed received. The petitioner had filed a statutory appeal against the Order in Original, which was acknowledged and assigned Appeal No. 90/2023-ST. The petitioner argued that under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, only 7.5% of the demand, amounting to Rs. 54,785/-, was required to be deposited for the appeal, and the balance recovered amount should be refunded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order in Original No.71/22-ST dated 15.03.2022 and the preceding show cause notice were duly served on the petitioner, making the recovery of Rs. 14,70,900/- lawful? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess amount recovered from his bank account, beyond the pre-deposit required for his statutory appeal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he never received the show cause notice or the Order in Original. He further contended that as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, he was only obligated to deposit 7.5% of the demand (Rs. 54,785/-) for his appeal, and therefore, the balance amount recovered should be refunded. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the order was despatched to the address provided by the petitioner in his service tax registration, and thus, it was deemed to have been received by him.