Dismissed

T.M.Hotels Private Limited v. The Joint commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Madras HC24 Sept 2024WP/3959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a confirmed service tax demand on support services of business for 2008-09 to 2012-13 after an earlier ex-parte order was set aside by this Court for lack of hearing. The Court held an efficacious appellate remedy exists under Sections 84-85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

T.M.Hotels Private Limited Vs The Joint commissioner of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3959 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.No.3959 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.4103 of 2022

¶7

T.M.Hotels Private Limited, Represented by its Director Mr.T.Murugesan, No.48A, Mettu Street, Kancheepuram – 631 501.

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Commissioer of GST & Central Excise, Chennai – Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers: No.2054-III Avenue: Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to File C.No.GEXCOM/ADJN/ST/ADC/1262/2021-ADJN in Order in Original No.60/2021(JC) dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 1 of 6

¶14

____________Page No. 1 of 6

¶15

W.P.No.3959 of 2022

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This is the second round of litigation before this Court. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order in Original No.60/2021 (JC) dated 24.11.2021. By the Impugned Order, the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice No.31 of 2013 dated 21.10.2013 has been confirmed.

¶18

2. Operative portion of the Impugned Order reads as under:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(a)I confirm the demand of service tax of Rs.39,14,849/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Nine Only) on TMHPL being the service tax payable on Support services of Business or Commerce for the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 (upto June 2012), under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 73(2) ibid.

¶21

(b) I order recovery of interest at the appropriate rates payable on the tax amount mentioned in (a) above in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.

¶22

(c) I impose a penalty of Rs.39,14,849/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Nine only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the amount of penalty payable shall stand reduced to 25% of the said amount, if the Service tax and interest determined is paid along with the reduced penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of this

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 2 of 6_

¶24

W.P.No.3959 of 2022

¶25

order in terms of proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

¶26

(d)I impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) under Section 77(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

¶27

(e) I do not impose penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994,as per my findings at para 22 above.”

¶28

Perusal of the documents filed before this Court indicates that earlier an ex-parte Order in Original No.11/2014(ST) dated 10.04.2014 came to be passed by the Respondent.

¶29

The Petitioner has challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.14099 of 2014. Since the Order was passed without granting the benefit of effective hearing, this Court intervened and had set aside the Order in Original No.11/2014(ST) dated 10.04.2014 vide its Order dated 06.07.2021. Thereafter, the Impugned Order has been passed. The Order of this Court also directed the Respondent to hear the Petitioner and pass appropriate Orders on merits. The Writ Petition indicates that the Petitioner was also heard before the Impugned Order was passed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a few decisions

¶31

of the Tribunal in support of the present Writ Petition. Even if there are few

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶33

Page No. 3 of 6

¶34

W.P.No.3959 of 2022

¶35

decisions of the Tribunal, it is for the Petitioner to establish that the decisions were in its favour before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 84 and 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. As such the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked as the Petitioner has an alternate remedy which is more efficacious.

¶36

Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

24.09.2024

¶38

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation :Yes/No rgm

¶39

¶40

The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶42

Page No. 4 of 6

¶43

W.P.No.3959 of 2022

¶44

Office of the Commissioer of GST & Central Excise, Chennai – Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers: No.2054-III Avenue: Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

¶45

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶46

rgm

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 5 of 6

¶48

____________Page No. 5 of 6

¶49

W.P.No.3959 of 2022

¶50

W.P.No.3959 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.4103 of 2022

¶51

24.09.2024

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 6 of 6

¶53

____________Page No. 6 of 6

T.M.Hotels Private Limited v. The Joint commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T.M.Hotels Private Limited v. The Joint commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gks Technology Park Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax

Gks Technology Park Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax

Smt.Gowri Gurumurthy, (Deceased) Vs The INcome Tax Settlement Commission

M/s.Avo Carbon Holdings Llc Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Moorthy Traders Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Lamax Rubber Industry Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Tamilnadu Small Industries