Yedla Ramana Vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: Shri Yedla Ramana, claiming to be a Priest and Founder-cum-President of Sri Sri Sri Aadhishakti Nagadevi Alaya Trust, Visakhapatnam, approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the GST (Central Tax) authorities. The dispute arose from amounts received from individual devotees during FY 2016-17 for poojas and other religious ceremonies. The petitioner had disclosed revenue of Rs.18,92,460/- from services rendered/conduct of religious ceremonies in his Income Tax Returns. Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice proposing Service Tax of Rs.2,83,869/- for FY 2016-17, along with interest and penalty under the Finance Act. After the petitioner submitted a reply dated 08.11.2021, the original authority passed an order on 22.01.2024 confirming the demand, interest and penalty. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable period of one month.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the original authority had failed to consider his detailed reply and had passed the order more than two years after the show cause notice, which, according to him, rendered the order time-barred. He also submitted that the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period because of his ill-health and that the delay was only 122 days. He sought setting aside of the appellate order and a fresh decision after examination of the contentions raised in the writ petition. The respondents defended the orders under challenge.
The High Court noted that the original authority had passed the order after affording an opportunity of hearing. It further observed that the petitioner had apparently not produced documents relating to the religious services, including pooja/ceremonies, before the original authority. On the issue of delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner relied upon material relating to his ill-health. The Court, however, was not persuaded by that material. The petitioner had filed a Medical/Doctor’s Prescription dated 01.03.2024 and an undated certificate marked Ex.P3 to substantiate the explanation for delay.
The Court reproduced the certificate relied upon by the petitioner. It stated that Y. Ramana was suffering from ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure and had been under the doctor’s care and treatment under bed rest from March to June 2024. The Court observed that, although the petitioner might have consulted a doctor on 01.03.2024, the undated certificate and insertions appearing in the neat copy were material. In particular, the Court noted that the original Ex.P3, at page No.72, did not contain “2024”, whereas “2024” had been inserted in the neat copy. The Court considered this attempt to be misleading and held that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands.
In these circumstances, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. It also considered the matter fit for imposition of costs. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. The order further stated “No costs.” and directed that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner, claiming to be a Priest and Founder-cum-President of Sri Sri Sri Aadhishakti Nagadevi Alaya Trust, Visakhapatnam, filed the present writ petition against the orders passed by the authorities under G.S.T.(Central Tax) Act, i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.
2. As per the brief averments in the writ affidavit, petitioner conducted various religious ceremonies in the name of the said Trust. During the financial year 2016-17, he received certain amounts from individual devotees for conduct of poojas and other religious ceremonies in the Temple. He filed Income Tax Returns by disclosing revenue from the services rendered / conduct of religious ceremonies, amounting to Rs.18,92,460/-. Respondent No.1 issued a Notice to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.2,83,869/- towards Service Tax payable for the Financial Year 2016-17 shall not be demanded and interest thereon along with penalty shall not be imposed under the provisions of the Finance Act. Reply dated 08.11.2021 was submitted and thereafter 1st respondent passed an Order dated 22.01.2024 confirming the demand as also interest and penalty thereon proposed in the Show Cause Notice. Appeal against the said order was rejected by the 2nd respondent / appellate authority on the premise that the same was filed beyond the condonable period of one month.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Smt.Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that 1st respondent / original authority passed Order dated 22.01.2024 without considering the detailed Reply dated 08.11.2021 to the Show Cause Notice. Further, that the said order was passed with a delay of more than two years from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, therefore barred by limitation and liable to be set aside on the said grounds. He submitted that against the order of the 1st respondent, appeal could not be filed within the time stipulated by the Statute owing to ill-health of the petitioner and without considering the reasons, 2nd respondent / appellate authority rejected the appeal though the delay in fling the same is only 122 days. He submitted that in view of the merits of the case set out in the writ petition, order of the appellate authority may be set aside; and a direction may be issued for passing an order afresh, by examining the various contentions raised by the writ petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for C.B.I.C., made submissions to sustain the orders under challenge.
6. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
7. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the 1st respondent passed the Order-in-original dated 22.01.2024 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Before the said authority, it would appear that the petitioner did not produce any documents relating to religious service viz., Pooja / ceremonies. Be that as it may. Insofar as delay in preferring appeal against the order of the 1st respondent is concerned, the argument advanced was that the petitioner due to his ill health could not file appeal within the time stipulated by the Statute. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the material papers filed along with the writ petition. As sufficient reasons exist, he contended that the 1st appellate authority failed to consider the same let alone condoning the delay.
8. However, we are not persuaded by the submission made by the learned counsel with reference to material pertaining to petitioner’s ill health. To substantiate his version, which caused the delay in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent, petitioner filed only two documents i.e., Medical / Doctor’s Prescription dated 01.03.2024 and an undated Certificate (marked as Ex.P3), the neat copy of which (Page No.73) reads as follows:
“Bhavya Heart Care Centre
To Whom So Ever it may concern
This is to certify that Y.Ramana, He is suffering from ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. Since March to June 2024, he is under my care and treatment under bed rest.
Dr .xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx.”
9. It is settled Law that petitioner invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to approach this Court with clean hands. Petitioner might have consulted Doctor on 01.03.2024, but undated Certificate relied on by the petitioner, and the insertions as mentioned above, which are not found in the original, leads to the conclusion that the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands. Notably, in the Original (Ex.P3, page No.72), ‘2024’ was not found, but inserted in the neat copy. Such an attempt on the part of the petitioner, in our opinion, is nothing but misleading the Court, which cannot be countenanced.
10. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is a fit case to impose costs.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
