Ganesh Cell Communication Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST And Central Excise (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court has conditionally quashed a service tax demand against Ganesh Cell Communication, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The petitioner had challenged an order dated March 9, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise under the Finance Act, 1994, despite having failed to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed two-month period or seek condonation of delay. The respondent argued for dismissal due to laches and cited Supreme Court precedents like Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) which ruled against entertaining writ petitions bypassing statutory appeal mechanisms. However, the High Court, following its consistent view in similar GST cases, granted partial relief. It directed the petitioner to treat the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice and file a reply along with the deposit. If complied, the respondent must pass a fresh order within three months after hearing the petitioner. Failure to comply will allow the respondent to proceed with tax recovery as if the petition were dismissed. The court referenced Singh Enterprises vs CCE (2008) and CCE and Customs vs. Hongo India (P) Limited (2009) to underscore the limitations on directing appeals contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
