The Icfai University, Tripura vs. The Ld. Joint Commissioner And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the CESTAT against the impugned orders within two weeks from the date of the order. This liberty included making the necessary pre-deposit and fulfilling other statutory compliances for maintaining the appeal. The respondents-Revenue were restrained from taking coercive steps for realization of the Service Tax dues for a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted that if no appeal was filed within this period, the Revenue would be at liberty to proceed with the recovery. The primary issue of limitation was not decided on merits, as the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to pursue an alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, The ICFAI University, Tripura, challenged orders in original dated 24.01.2018 and 16.02.2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. They also challenged an order in appeal dated 02.12.2020 and a rectification of mistake order dated 09.10.2023, both issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). A recovery notice dated 16.11.2023 was also challenged, demanding Service Tax of Rs.2,28,54,513/-, penalty of Rs.2,28,74,513/-, plus interest, with threats of recovery under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued several grounds but acknowledged approaching the High Court after the period of limitation, even considering the extended period granted by the Apex Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court given the expiry of the period of limitation for filing an appeal, as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and considering the Apex Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020 and the judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ application to approach the CESTAT with a delay condonation application, citing the threat of recovery proceedings. They intended to make the pre-deposit of the balance amount as mandated under Section 35(F) of the amended Excise Act, 1944. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, upon instructions, agreed not to take coercive steps for a period of two weeks if the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the writ application and prefer an appeal before the CESTAT.