Mohammed Ibrahim Ahamed vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Ibrahim Ahamed, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division. This order determined the petitioner's liability for Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner had previously filed another writ petition (W.P. (MD) No. 10869 of 2022) challenging a notification dated 01.03.2016 concerning eligibility for exemption on contracts entered after that date, along with an interim injunction application. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed by the First Respondent without awaiting the outcome of the pending writ petition and interim application. The respondents referred to a Master Circular on Show Cause Notice, Adjudication and Recovery, specifically the 'Call Book Cases' provision.

Held

The Court held that while the Departmental Circular did not expressly prohibit adjudication during the pendency of a writ petition, it did not divest the Court of its power to pass interim or final orders. Any decision taken by the authority would be subject to the outcome of the Court's orders in the pending writ petition. Consequently, the Court directed that the implementation of the impugned Original Order No. MAD-ST-ASC-193/2022 dated 20.12.2022, passed by the First Respondent, be kept in abeyance. Further action by the concerned authorities would be taken in accordance with law, depending on the outcome of the orders, interim or final, to be passed in the pending Writ Petition W.P. (MD) No. 10869 of 2022. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Respondent was precluded from passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2022, determining the petitioner's Service Tax liability, while a prior writ petition (W.P. (MD) No. 10869 of 2022) challenging the relevant notification and seeking interim relief was pending. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed prematurely, without awaiting the outcome of the earlier writ petition and the decision on the interim injunction application, which directly related to the eligibility for exemption from service tax. Respondents' contention: The respondents relied on para 9.3 of the Master Circular on Show Cause Notice, Adjudication and Recovery, particularly the 'Call Book Cases' provision. They argued that in the absence of a specific interim order restraining the authority from proceeding, there was no impediment to passing a final decision, and the petitioner could not challenge the final decision merely because an application for an interim order was pending.