Revenue appealed against a remand order directing fresh assessment of an assessee's service tax exemption claim under Section 66D(g), which the Assessing Authority had passed without considering precedents relied on by the assessee. The Division Bench found no merit and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South Commissionerate 6th Floor, MHU Complex 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai – 600 035.
.. Appellant
Vs.
M/s. View Max Rep. By its proprietor M.Ramavidyadharan No.26/52, Balaji Bhavan, 48th Street 9th Avenue, Ashok Nagar Chennai – 600 083.
.. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P.No.7674 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021.
For the Appellant : Mr.Su.Srinivasan Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Ms.R.Sri Viswapriya for M/s.J.Shankaraman
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This appeal has been directed against the order of the Writ
Court made in W.P.No.7674 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021 in the case
of M/s. View Max vs. The Commissioner of GST & Central
Excise .
Page 1 of 5
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
Page 2 of 5
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
petition, that position has not been accepted by the Writ Court for the reason that in those cases, the tax had been collected and it has not been paid. Therefore, the facts cannot be fit-in into the facts of the present case, and moreover, such a decision has not been made by the Assessing Authority while passing the order, taking note of the earlier precedents as has been sought to be compared and considered by the assessee dealer and that is the reason why, the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order has remitted the matter back to the original Assessing Authority to reconsider the same and to pass fresh orders, of course, by taking into account the ratio of the order in M/s. Chennai Digital Print Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai
North Commissionerate vide Order-in-Original No.9/2017(C.N.) dated 11.09.2017 as well as any other order passed by the Coordinate Officer on that issue.
Page 3 of 5
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.9458 of 2021 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 13.11.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
Page 4 of 5
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm)
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
13.11.2024
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court erred in remitting the service tax exemption claim under Section 66D(g) to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration instead of dismissing the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Chennai Digital Print Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai North CommissionerateReferred¶4
M/s. Chennai Digital Print Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate vide Order-in-Original
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
M/s. View Max, rep. by its proprietor M.Ramavidyadharan
R. Suresh Kumar
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
