Dismissed

Manoharan.G v. The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

Madras HC21 Mar 2024WP(MD)/6983/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a PWD contractor, challenged a service tax demand after exemption was withdrawn. Dismissing the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority per earlier High Court and Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file statutory appeal before Appellate Authority within four weeks; matter remitted to appellate jurisdiction.

Manoharan.G Vs The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.6983 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No .6983 of 2024 and WMP(MD) No.6502 of 2024

¶7

Manoharan.G ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, GST Bhavan, Central Revenue Buildings, No.4, Lal Bahadur Shastri Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶10

2.The Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, Central Revenue Buildings, VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶11

3.The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, Central Revenue Buildings, VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002. .. Respondents

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P(MD)No.6983 of 2024

¶15

PRAYER:

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orderin-original of the 2nd respondent in MAD-ST-ASC-63-2022 dated 21.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct to re-do the assessment afresh after giving due opportunity.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Veeramanikandan For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is a contractor under the PWD

¶20

Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has claimed exemption for the services provided to the Government. However, the same was withdrawn vide Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax,

¶21

dated 01.03.2015. In pursuant to the above notification, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 28.12.2020, proposing to levy service tax along with penalty on the alleged services rendered by the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017. The petitioner has offered his explanation. However, without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.6983 of 2024

¶25

on 21.01.2022, confirming the demand of service tax along with penalty. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.24996 of 2019, dated 30.11.2022, wherein, similar contractors are directed to approach the appellate authority and the relevant portion is extracted as under:-

¶27

“123.The prayer for a direction to refund of tax already paid by the petitioner also cannot be countenanced as these petitioners are liable to tax. Therefore, wherever the Orders-in-Original have been passed, the respective petitioners are given liberty to file statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority subject to the compliance of the other requirements of pre-deposit the amount as is contemplated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

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

¶29

3/6

¶30

W.P(MD)No.6983 of 2024

¶31

124.Subject to the above, the appeals to be filed by the respective petitioners shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority before whom the appeals are to be filed by the respective petitioners within such time. If such appeals are filed within such time, the Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders in the proposed appeals to be filed by the respective petitioners on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation.”

¶32

3.Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes

¶33

notice for the respondents and submits that the above order of the Division Bench of Principal Seat of this Court has been confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.7181 to 7199 of 2023, dated 10.04.2023.

¶34

4.In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of

¶35

with a liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such filing of an appeal, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority as

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.6983 of 2024

¶39

expeditiously as possible in the light of the above orders passed by

¶40

this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

21.03.2024

¶42

NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes Internet:Yes vrn

¶43

Note: Issue order copy on 26.03.2024.

¶44

¶45

1.The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, GST Bhavan, Central Revenue Buildings, No.4, Lal Bahadur Shastri Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶46

2.The Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, Central Revenue Buildings, VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶47

3.The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, Central Revenue Buildings, VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶48

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

¶49

5/6

¶50

W.P(MD)No.6983 of 2024

¶51

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶52

vrn

¶53

Order made in W.P(MD)No .6983 of 2024 and WMP(MD) No.6502 of 2024

¶54

21.03.2024

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Manoharan.G v. The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan.G v. The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sayira Begam Vs The Regional Transport Officer

A.Palanisamy Vs The Regional Transport Officer

D Selvan Vs The District Collector

S Subaitha Beevi Vs The District Collector

Chandrasekara Pandian v Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Poovendhan Vs The Regional Transport Authority