Hotel Shri Swarnas Palace vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Hotel Shri Swarna's Palace, challenged an Order-in-Original No.37/2022-ST dated 10.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise. This order confirmed a demand of Rs.3,92,229/- for service tax for the period April 2016 to June 2017, along with interest and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner contended that their Chartered Accountant failed to file an appeal within the statutory period. The petitioner had paid the disputed tax amount on 14.03.2024, excluding penalty and interest. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, citing a Supreme Court decision.

Held

The Court held that while the respondent's argument regarding the maintainability of a writ petition beyond the statutory appeal period was noted, and the petitioner had paid the disputed tax, there was no impediment to granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Commissioner. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. If such an appeal were filed within this period, the Appellate Commissioner was directed to dispose of the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation period. The release of any vehicle, if involved, was made subject to the final outcome of confiscation proceedings. The issue of whether the original order was without merits was not decided by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, especially when the petitioner has paid the disputed tax amount? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and principles of statutory appeal). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was without merits and liable to be set aside. They also submitted that they had paid the disputed tax amount. (No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by the petitioner in the judgment text for this argument). Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the writ petition was not entertainable beyond the statutory period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020 SCC Online SC 440), stating that the appeal ought to have been filed within two months or with a delay condonation application within 30 days thereafter. The respondent submitted that the writ petition was filed beyond 120 days and thus liable to be dismissed.