West Central Railway vs. Gst Customs Central Excise

PDF · subscribers
MP/1472/2019HC Madhya Pradesh13 August 2019Author: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellate authority was fully justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The dismissal was based on two critical defaults: the substantial delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period and the failure to deposit the pre-requisite amount as required under the Finance Act 1994. The Court found that both these defaults were fundamental and went to the very core of the matter, rendering the appeal non-maintainable. Consequently, the High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the authorities, stating they were in consonance with the statutory requirements. The writ petition was therefore summarily dismissed as lacking merit and substance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, West Central Railway, engaged in providing taxable services related to renting immovable property for business and supplying tangible goods, failed to comply with Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994. This led to an assessment order dated 30.01.2017 by the Additional Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Service Tax, Jabalpur, demanding Rs. 2,08,06,540/- along with interest and penalty. The petitioner received this order on 30.01.2017. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) GST, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal, on 30.07.2017, which was significantly beyond the prescribed two-month limitation period. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on two grounds: delay in filing and non-deposit of the pre-requisite amount as required by the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was maintainable, considering the delay in filing and the non-deposit of the pre-requisite amount, as per the Finance Act 1994? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee (petitioner) regarding the maintainability of the appeal or challenging the grounds for dismissal. The assessee's counsel was heard on the question of admission of the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (revenue) contended that the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal on both counts – the significant delay in filing the appeal and the failure to deposit the necessary pre-requisite amount as mandated by the Finance Act 1994. These defaults were considered to go to the root of the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 65,Section 67

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MP-1472-2019 (WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs GST CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE) 3 Jabalpur, Dated : 13-08-2019 Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners. He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.01.2017 and the Order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Service Tax, Jabalpur and the Commissioner (Appeals) GST, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal respectively. Relevant facts in brief gathered from the material placed on record are as under. Petitioner, having a Service Tax Registration, is engaged in providing taxable service in tangible goods and collecting taxable amount in respect of Renting the immoveables for further of business and supplying the tangible goods to persons as per Section 65 of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 on which service tax has been imposed from 1.4.2011 and 30.11.2013 respectively. Petitioner despite notices failed to comply with Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994, therefore, the authority assessed the tax and raised demand of Rs.2,08,06,540 /- for payment together with interest and penalty. Said order was passed 30.1.2017. It is clear that said order was received by the petitioner on 30.1.2017. Against the order dated 30.1.2017, petitioner could have preferred an appeal within two months, but no such appeal was preferred within time prescribed and it was filed on 30.7.2017 i.e. .......... days clearly beyond the expiry of limitation. Appellate authority summarily dismissed the appeal on two 1 MP-1472-2019 PATEL Date: 16/08/2019 15:37:18 (RAVI SHANKAR JHA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE counts, firstly, on the point of delay and secondly, on the point of non-deposit of necessary pre-requisite amount as is required under the Act of 1994. Both defaults went to the root of the matter. Consequently, the respondents were fully justified in dismissing the appeal on both counts. We see no infirmity or illegality with the impugned orders which are in consonance with the statutory requirements. We thus find no merit and substance in the writ petition. It is hereby summarily dismissed. Ordered accordingly. pp

2 MP-1472-2019 PATEL Date: 16/08/2019 15:37:18

More judgments on Section 65

All 33 judgments and leading authorities on Section 65 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →