Allowed

Unipro Marketing Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax,Delhi

Delhi HC22 Mar 2016SERTA/7/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restored the Appellant's appeal against Service Tax to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal on merits. Allowing a partial pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs as sufficient instead of the earlier required Rs. 5 lakhs, the court set aside order preventing the appeal from being heard.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order of CESTAT and Commissioner (Appeals) regarding pre-deposit; restored appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal on merits; treated Rs. 2 lakhs deposited as sufficient compliance.

Unipro Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

36.

¶4

SERTA 7/2016 UNIPRO MARKETING PVT.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Resmitha, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶8

O R D E R % 22.03.2016

¶9

CM No. 10749/2016 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The applications stand disposed.

¶12

CM APPL. 10750/2016 & SERTA 7/2016

¶13

Notice. Mr Satish Kumar, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Respondent accepts notice.

¶14

This is an appeal against the order dated 26^th October, 2015 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’) upholding the order dated 19^th August, 2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-II

¶15

SERTA 7/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶16

which rejected the appeal by Appellant against the original Adjudication order dated 9^th May, 2013 raising the service tax demand of Rs.10,00,698/along with the interest and penalty for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09.

¶17

The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on the ground that the Appellant had failed to make the pre deposit of Rs.5 lakhs as per the order dated 15^th July, 2013 Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant sought modification of the said order but the Commissioner (Appeals) declined the request.

¶18

The CESTAT has, in the impugned order, declined to interfere with the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the order was ‘impeccable’.

¶19

The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The Court is informed that subsequent to the dismissal of the Appellant’s appeal by the CESTAT, it has deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs through a challan dated 9^th March, 2016. Considering that the total service tax demand is around Rs 10 lakhs, the said amount should serve as sufficient for a pre-deposit amount for the appeal to be heard on merits.

¶20

In that view of the matter, this court set asides the impugned order dated 26^th October, 2015 of the CESTAT as well as the order dated 19^th August, 2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The sum of Rs. 2 lakhs deposited by the Appellant shall be treated as being in compliance of the pre-deposit order dated 15^th July, 2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals), which will stand

¶21

SERTA 7/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶22

modified to that extent.

¶23

Resultantly, the Appellant’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-II shall stand restored to the file and be now disposed of on merits in accordance with law. The appeal shall be listed before the Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-II on 16^th May, 2016 for directions.

¶24

The appeal and the application are disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶26

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶27

MARCH 22, 2016 MK

¶28

SERTA 7/2016 Page 3 of 3

Unipro Marketing Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax,Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unipro Marketing Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax,Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I

National Building Construction Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I

Classic Constructions Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner 0F Service Tax, Delhi-I

S & S Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi-I

Farhat Construction Vs Commissioner, Bhillai

National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited Vs C.S.T. Delhi

M/S Diwan Chand Satya Pal Aggl. Imaging Vs UOI & Ors.

Sofema S.A. France Vs Dy.Director of Income Tax & an

M/S Relikan Meadows P. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes Delhi

Verizon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi III & Ors.

Verizon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi III & Ors.