Case Law Details
Centro Projects And Marketing Vs Deputy Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed a pivotal issue concerning Centro Projects and Marketing’s dispute with the Deputy Commissioner. The crux of the matter revolves around a payment discrepancy, where a significant sum remains unaccounted for in the Central Excise portal.
The petitioner, Centro Projects and Marketing, found itself embroiled in a legal tussle following an assessment order (Ext.P3) by the 2nd respondent. Despite the petitioner’s compliance with a portion of the demand stated in Ext.P3, amounting to Rs. 54,70,716/-, challenges arose in initiating an appeal due to a conspicuous absence of this payment on the portal. Consequently, the petitioner faced a requirement to remit 10% of the total demand outlined in Ext.P3 to pursue the appeal.
Acknowledging the payment made by Centro Projects and Marketing during the proceedings, the court noted a discrepancy wherein the sum of Rs. 54,70,716/- failed to reflect on the portal. The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents admitted to technical glitches causing this discrepancy.
In its verdict, the court prioritized the interest of justice, allowing the petitioner to resort to manual filing for the appeal before the Appellate Authority. This dispensation included crediting the sum previously paid by the petitioner. Notably, the court emphasized the timeliness of the appeal, instructing that compliance within ten days from the ruling date would validate it as timely against the Ext.P3 order.
The Kerala High Court’s decision in the Centro Projects and Marketing vs Deputy Commissioner case exemplifies a pragmatic approach to rectifying procedural hurdles. By permitting manual appeal filing and considering the petitioner’s timely payment, the court ensures fairness and upholds the principles of natural justice. This ruling not only resolves the immediate issue but also sets a precedent for addressing similar challenges in future tax-related disputes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner suffered Ext.P3 order of assessment at the hands of the 2nd respondent. Certain portion of the demand confirmed by Ext.P3 is not disputed by the petitioner. It has therefore paid a sum of Rs.54,70,716/-. The petitioner wanted to prefer an appeal against Ext.P3 order. However, the petitioner has not been able to upload its appeal on account of the fact that the payment of Rs.54,70,716/- is not reflected in the portal and therefore the petitioner is required to pay 10% of the total demand in Ext.P3 for maintaining the appeal.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents does not dispute the fact that a sum of Rs.54,70,716/- had been paid by the petitioner during the course of the proceedings. He also states that due to some glitches, the payment of Rs.54,70,716/- is not reflected in the portal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal manually before the Appellate Authority together with 10% of the amount required to be paid by the petitioner after giving credit to the sum of Rs.54,70,716/- , which has already been paid by the petitioner. Considering the fact that this writ petition was filed on 05-03-2024 and noting that Ext.P3 order was issued on 06-12-2023, I deem it appropriate to further direct that if an appeal is filed as directed above within a period of ten days from today, the same shall be treated as an appeal filed in time against Ext.P3 order.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Author Bio
