Dear Professional Colleague,
We are sharing with you an important judgment of High Court, Rajasthan, in the case of Fashion Suitings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise & Service Tax, Range – I, Bhilwara, [(2014) 52 taxmann.com 132 (Rajasthan)] on following issue:
Whether the department can initiate recovery proceedings against Assessee where Stay application is pending before Tribunal for the reasons not attributable to him?
Facts & background:
Fashion Suitings Private Limited (“the Petitioner”) received a Demand Notice dated October 8, 2013 for the payment of Service tax amounting to Rs 15,78,40,282/- with interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 17,08,00,086/- against the Order-in-Original dated October 26, 2012 during the pendency of Stay application before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
The Petitioner had already filed an appeal along with Stay application before the Hon’ble Tribunal on February 7, 2013. The Stay application was listed on several dates before the Hon’ble Tribunal but got adjourned either due to non-availability of the Bench or for not reaching the matter before the Bench.
Accordingly the Department issued a Demand Notice on expiry of specified period in terms of the Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX (“the Circular”) dated January 1, 2013.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filled a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan contending that in the case of Manglam Cement Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise [2013 (290) ELT 353 (Raj.)] (“Manglam Cement case”), the Circular has already been declared non est by this Court where the Stay application is pending for any reason not attributable to the Assessee.
The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan after considering the Manglam Cement case held that since this Court had already held that the Circular was non est insofar relating to situation where Stay applications remain pending in Appellate fora, it was strange that the Department had chosen to issue notice on basis of same Circular. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the said recovery proceedings were a show of total disrespect to and defiance of order of High Court and gave rise to serious questions on approach and intentions of Department.
Hence, Writ petition was admitted, recovery proceedings were stayed and a contempt notice was issued to the Superintendent with a direction to register suo motu contempt petition against him in personal name.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,Bimal Jain FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons) Delhi: Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket – 1, Mayur Vihar, Phase – I, Delhi – 110091, India Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056 Mobile: +91 9810604563 Chandigarh: H.No. 908, Sector 12-A, Panchkula, Haryana – 134115 Kolkata: Ist Floor, 10 R G Kar Road Shyambazar, Kolkata – 700 004 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: www.a2ztaxcorp.com
Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the authors nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Readers are advised to consult the professional for understanding applicability of this newsletter in the respective scenarios. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without our written permission.