Disposed

West Asia Maritime Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC1 Mar 2024WP/4106/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an order invoking penalty under Section 73(1)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Holding that the matter could be addressed via rectification, liberty was granted to file a rectification petition within two weeks, after which the writ petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is at liberty to file a rectification petition within two weeks; the writ petition stands disposed of.

West Asia Maritime Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.4106 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 01.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.4106 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P. No.4684 of 2021

¶9

West Asia Maritime Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr.V.C.Ganesh, Buhari Towers, 6^th Floor, No.4, Moores Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Nungambakkam Division, Chennai North Commissionerate, No.26/1, 5^th Floor, Annexe Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶13

2.The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Nungambakkam Division, Chennai North Commmissionerate, No.26/1, 5^th Floor, Annexe Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the Respondent in proceedings C.No.IV/16/374/2017-Tech in Order-inOriginal No.23&24/2017-18 dated 26.03.2018 passed by the 1^st Respondent and the consequential order C.No.IV/16/129/2015-C dated 25.01.2021 passed by the 2^nd Respondent and notice of demand in C.No.IV/16/129/2015 dated 01.02.2021 U/Sec.87 of the Finance Act, 1994 issued by the 2^nd

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No.4106 of 2021

¶18

Respondent and quash these orders as arbitrary and illegal.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar For Respondents : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan Senior Standing Counsel

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 insofar as the Respondents have invoked Section 73(1)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994, on the premise that the issue and the subject matter in respect of the earlier show cause notice which relates to the period 201011 to 2013-14 and the impugned proceedings which relates to the period 2014-15 and 2015-16 cannot be identical.

¶22

It is the submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as it looks to agreements entered into for letting out their vessel bases on the quantum of goods to be transported to various parties such as M/s.Ultratech Cement Ltd., V.V.Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Sesa Sterlite limited, Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., etc., and that such services provided by the assessee were required to be classified under the category of “Transport of

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P. No.4106 of 2021

¶26

goods by Coastal Shipping Service” till 30.06.2012 and as taxable service from 01.07.2012 as the case may be.

¶27

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the relevant period, the petitioner did not have any agreement/ contract with the above parties and it is also the submission that the nature of the rights and obligation would vary from contract to contract and therefore any attempt to adjudicate would vitiate the proceedings.

¶28

To a pointed question as to why these errors cannot be a subject matter of rectification petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek liberty of this Court for filing of rectification petition.

¶29

The learned counsel for the Respondents would submit that there is an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal and this being an appealable order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same should not be entertained.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P. No.4106 of 2021

¶33

As stated supra, if the submissions of the petitioner were to be taken as representing the correct state of affairs, then the impugned order may possibly suffer from error apparent. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to file a rectification petition within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such rectification petition is filed, the same shall be considered and orders passed after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and decide the mater in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶34

01.03.2024

¶35

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P. No.4106 of 2021

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Nungambakkam Division, Chennai North Commissionerate,

¶41

No.26/1, 5^th Floor, Annexe Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶42

2.The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Nungambakkam Division, Chennai North Commmissionerate, No.26/1, 5^th Floor, Annexe Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P. No.4106 of 2021

¶46

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶47

mka

¶48

W.P. No.4106 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.4684 of 2021

¶49

01.03.2024

¶50

6/6

¶51

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

West Asia Maritime Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

West Asia Maritime Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Msr Polymer and Paper Cups Vs The Additional Deputy Commercial

M/s.R.R.Donnelley India Outsource Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

S.Lakshmipathy Vs The Chairman

M/s.Prv Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs The State tax officer

Tvl.Jrp Exports Vs Assistant Commissioner (Arc)

M/s.Pallazzio Energy Farms LLP Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax