Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Parshottam Parkash Vs Commissioner Of Service Tax (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : Ceac No. 13/2010 & Cm No. 16125/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 29/03/2011
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (4152) Delhi High Court (1286)

It was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the averments raised by the appellant herein need to be decided on merits by the appellate authority in view of the issue raised by the appellant with regard to his liability. The impugned order has been passed on a prima facie view of the appellate authority. Keeping in view the averments raised by the appellant and the fact that he is an aged person of about 80 years and has no source of income of his own and the fact that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a pre- deposit for hearing the appeal, we are of the view that the pre- deposit order of an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is not justified. In the given circumstances, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of asking for the pre- deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CEAC NO. 13/2010 & CM NO. 16125/2010

SHRI PARSHOTTAM PARKASH

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-I

Dated: March 29, 2011

: the averments raised by the appellant need to be decided on merits by the appellate authority in view of the issue raised by the appellant with regard to his liability. The impugned order has been passed on a prima facie view of the appellate authority. Keeping in view the averments raised by the appellant and the fact that he is an aged person of about 80 years and has no source of income of his own and the fact that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, the pre-deposit order of an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is not justified. In the given circumstances, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of asking for the pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs.

JUDGEMENT

Per: M L Mehta:

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 08.06.2010 of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Vide this order, appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakh in addition to already deposited sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order on various grounds. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondent. Since the impugned order relate to pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs, we need not go into the details of facts except mentioning in brief that appellant has averred that he has no concern whatsoever of any kind with M/s.Star Shine Cable Network, which is the proprietary concern of his daughter-in-law, Ritu Prakash. The registration certificate of said firm was issued in the name of his son, Vikram Prakash, as its proprietor. Vikram Prakash has also filed an affidavit before the authorities under Entertainment & Betting Tax Act and had also written a letter to the Taxation Officer with regard to entertainment liability. The said firm was operating from its commercial premises at 118, R.G. Complex, DDA Market, Sector 14, Rohini, which was owned by Ritu Prakash, however, the licence had been obtained by them from his residential premises, i.e., Flat No.407, Savera Apartment, Rohini. It is submitted that when the raid was conducted at the premises No.118, R.G. Complex, DDA Market, Sector 14, Rohini, Suresh Bhutani, father of Ritu Prakash, who was present there, informed the searching officers that his daughter, Ritu, is the proprietor. Bank account of the firm was also stated to be operated by Ritu Prakash. It is averred that service tax authorities issued the notice in the name of the firm at his residential address, 407, Savera Appartments, Rohini. He appeared in response to the notice before the authorities and informed about his having no concern with the said firm. Ritu Prakash on her part also wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Service Tax, stating herself to be an employee of the said firm and also having resigned therefrom. He also replied to a show cause notice of the service tax authorities informing them to be having no concern with this firm. On 4th March, 2008, Additional Commissioner, Service Tax, passed assessment order in respect of the said firm holding the appellant as its proprietor and framed a liability of Rs.46.00 lakhs. He filed appeal before the Commissioner, Excise (Appeals), who affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner. Against the order of the Commissioner, Excise (Appeals), he filed appeal before the CESTAT, which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order. The appellant stated that he is aged about 80 years and has undergone eyes operation and has no concern whatsoever of any kind with the aforesaid firm.

2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant also drew our attention to an order passed by another Division Bench of this Court dated 31st January, 2001 in the writ petition filed by the appellant. That case related to demand of entertainment tax from the appellant by the concerned authorities, which was disputed by the appellant on the similar lines as in the present case. In the said case, the pre-deposit order was modified by the Division Bench on the similar submissions as made by the appellant before us as noted above.

3. It was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the averments raised by the appellant herein need to be decided on merits by the appellate authority in view of the issue raised by the appellant with regard to his liability. The impugned order has been passed on a prima facie view of the appellate authority. Keeping in view the averments raised by the appellant and the fact that he is an aged person of about 80 years and has no source of income of his own and the fact that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, we are of the view that the pre-deposit order of an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is not justified. In the given circumstances, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of asking for the pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs.

4. We may clarify that any observation made by us in this appeal shall not be taken to be our observation on the merits of the case by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal on merits. The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of.

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3366)
Type : Judiciary (11670)
Tags : high court judgments (4464)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *