Case Law Details
The impugned communications dated 22 January 2014 and 23 January 2014 issued by Respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax insisting that the Petitioner should pay the amounts adjudicated upon by order dated 27 December 2013 is contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act which provides for a period of three months to file an appeal to the Tribunal. In this case, the impugned communications are issued without waiting for the statutory period of three months provided to enable the filing of an appeal and stay application to the Tribunal is over. This is contrary to the CBEC circular dated 1 January 2013 issued by CBEC. The impugned communications, to say the least, is high handed. The statute has advisedly provided a period of three months to an assessee to file an appeal before the appellate authority and also obtain a stay. This is with a view to enable the assessee to seek proper advice and considered opinion on the adjudication order before taking a decision and then challenging the adjudication order in appeal proceedings.
In case, the Revenue is allowed to adopt coercive measures and/or if the assessee is required to pay tax determined immediately, it would lead to injustice to an assessee, as his opportunity to obtain a stay from the appellate authority would stand foreclosed. Moreover, the inherent right of an appellate authority to stay the order being appealed against would be rendered futile. In fact, this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. Union of India and others (1959-ELT-505) had directed the Revenue to return the amounts recovered by encashing the bank guarantee of the assess as it was done before the expiry of three months to file an appeal.
The officers of Respondent Revenue would do well to realize that their job is much more than merely collecting the tax. They are officers of the State, administering the Finance Act, 1994 and fairness in approach to the tax payers and acting in accordance with the Rule of Law is a sine-qua-non in discharge of all its functions. In the circumstances, we hold that the impugned communications dated 22 January 2014 and 23 January 2014 are not only in defiance of the CBEC circular dated 1 January 2013 but also in breach of the statutory provisions which gives a period of three months to enable the aggrieved party to file an appeal before the appellate authority.
Recommended Read :-
Madras HC grant interim stay in respect of demand raised pursuant to CBEC Circular
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
