Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1215

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Whether Tribunal can take different views than taken on previous cases of assessee?

Case:- Sayaji Hotels Ltd. vs. Union of India
 
Citation: - 2011(268) E.L.T. 315 (M.P.)
 
Issue: - Whether different views can be taken by the Tribunal in deciding petitioner’s prayer for the waiver of pre deposit of service tax as considered in previous occasions for same question where no change in circumstances has taken place?
 
Brief fact:-Petitioner claimed to be a company engaged in the business of running Hotel in Indore, which provides various services to its guest including rooms, restaurant, health club, swimming pools, taxi services, banquet hall etc. For the service related to the banquet hall which Petitioner provides for its guests, it is registered as ‘Mandap keeper’. Petitioner provides food and beverages during the function organized in the banquet hall and for the supply of the foods and beverages it was paying Sales Tax (VAT) as was applicable. From March 2005 the petitioner was paying service tax on the gross amount charged from the guest under the ‘Mandap keeper service’ excluding the value of foods and beverages sold by it in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, dated 20-6-2003. Thus, petitioner claims that it was collecting and paying service tax on the full amount of service charges, tent house charges, decoration charges, stage charges on the amount charged from the guest. Petitioner’s return under Form ST-3 regarding payment of service tax were considered by the fourth respondent Commissioner Central Excise.
 
The Commissioner observing that the petitioner had provided service of ‘Mandap Keeper’ with catering but has not paid service tax on gross amount received after claiming abatement as per Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 1-3-2006, issued show cause notice to the Petitioner to deny benefit of notification dated 20-6-2003 and demanded service tax with interest and proposed to impose penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act.                  .                                                                            

The petitioner submitted its reply that they were entitled for the benefit of the Notification No 12/2003 dated 20-6-2003 and that the supply of foods and beverages in the banquet hall which is liable to sales tax (VAT) cannot be subjected to Service Tax.
 
The Commissioner held that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the said Notification dated 20-6-2003. Accordingly, the fourth respondent demanded Service Tax from the petitioner with interest at the rate applicable and also imposed penalty.
 
Aggrieved Petitioner filed statutory appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with an application for stay before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the Petitioner’s   prayer for the total waiver of pre-deposit and directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs 60,00,000/- out of the total demand within four weeks. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed Writ- petition before the High Court. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
Petitioner contention:-The contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed error in not maintaining consistency and uniformity in approach in deciding the petitioner’s prayer for waiver. He pointed out that on the earlier two occasions in the case of the petitioner itself relating to the earlier assessment year involving identical question, the Tribunal had granted total waiver for entertaining its appeals. In the circumstances, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Traders Vs State of Haryana and others -1995 Supp(1) SCC 461 and in the view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India , 2009 (13) S.T.R 490. (Bom), the Tribunal should have taken a consistent view and should have granted total waiver. It was further submitted that there were no changes in the circumstances after passing earlier two order of complete waiver and therefore, the petitioner should have been granted dispensation with such deposit in order to maintain the parity. In order to support his contention  that the petitioner would suffer a undue hardship  and that it has prima facie case as the demand  raised has not leg to stand reliance was placed on judgment of the Supreme Court  in case of Imagic Creative Pvt.Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2008(9) S.T.R. 337 (S.C).
 
Respondent contention:- Revenue argued that in the absence of undue hardship being established by the petitioner, the  order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal warranting interference by this Court in this petition  under  Article 226/227 of the constitution of India.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - It was found on the earlier two occasions when the said two appeals were filled by the petitioner raising the identical question, the Tribunal after considering the prayer for the waiver has granted the total waiver of the deposit. However in the present case while considering the prayer of the Tribunal of the impugned order, it has observed that the appellant has come before the Tribunal for the third time to seek waiver of pre-deposit on the same plea that no service tax will be levied if Sales Tax or VAT has paid.
 
On going through the entire order it was found that there is no finding recorded by Tribunal that after obtaining the said order of complete waiver, the petitioner is delaying the hearing of the said appeal. In the circumstances, if the earlier appeal filed are not being heard by the Tribunal and the petitioner has been required to file an appeal for the subsequent years, petitioner cannot be made responsible  and cannot be denied the similar benefit which were earlier granted to it in the earlier two appeals  involving same question.
 
In the absence of change in the circumstances, the Tribunal should have maintained the consistency and uniformity while exercising the judicial discretion and should not have taken different view than the view it had already taken in the earlier two appeals involving identical issue that too by assigning the reason that the earlier two appeal are pending since last two and half year.
 
The High Court found that the course adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down in the case of Vishnu Traders vs. State of Haryana and others in which the Supreme Court has observed that “In the matter of interlocutory order, principle of binding precedent cannot be said to apply. However the need for the consistency of approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes and the desirability to eliminate occasion for the grievances of discriminatory treatment require that all similar matter should receive similar treatment except where factual differences require a different treatment so that there is assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach.” The Tribunal has committed gross illegality in not maintaining uniformity and consistency in the exercise of its judicial discretion. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for not granting complete waiver in the appeal filled by the petitioner  in the third year’s challenges the assessment being wholly unsustainable, the Impugned order deserve to be  and is hereby quashed to the extent of the imposition of the condition of pre-deposit of Rs 60,00,000/-. The Tribunal is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. Petitioner was willing and ready to get it all the aforesaid three appeal decided as expeditiously as possible. In order to avoid undue delay the Tribunal was directed to decide all the aforesaid appeals of the petitioner finally within a period of 8 week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
 
Decision: - Petition disposed of.
 
Comments: - As per decision of Supreme Court as referred above the Tribunal should not take different views in the absence of change in the circumstances. There should be consistency and uniformity while exercising judicial discretion by Tribunal except where factual differences require a different treatment to assure consistency, uniformity and certainty in judicial approach.
 
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com