Allowed

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, v. The Asst. Commissioner

Telangana HC9 Apr 2013WP/10665/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking relief against coercive recovery of service tax, the High Court restrained the respondents from initiating recovery steps until the petitioner's stay application before CESTAT is disposed of. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount as determined in the original order pending disposal of the stay application by CESTAT, Bangalore.

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Vs The Asst. Commissioner — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 10665 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 09.04.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Krishna District. .. Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District and 4 others.

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 10665 OF 2013

¶9

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶10

By order dated 22.03.2011, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Vijayawada determined the amount payable by the petitioner towards the service tax apart from imposing interest and the penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent-The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Guntur and the same is confirmed by order dated 24.11.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4^th respondent-the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore along with an application for stay and the same is still pending. In the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned notice dated 21.03.2013 demanding payment of the amounts as per the original order dated 22.03.2011 immediately under the threat of coercive steps stating that as per the circular dated 01.01.2013, the proceedings for recovery have to be initiated after 30 days if no stay is granted or after the disposal of the stay petition in accordance with the conditions of stay, if any specified, whichever is earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V.Gopalakrishna Gokhale, the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶12

Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax.

¶13

It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for both the parties that in similar circumstances, various writ petitions were disposed of by this Court directing that no coercive steps should be initiated for recovery of the amount of liability determined against the petitioners therein till the stay petitions were decided by the appellate authorities. Having regard to the fact that the stay application filed by the petitioner herein along with the main appeal against the order dated 24.11.2011 is admittedly pending before CESTAT, Bangalore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount as determined in the original order dated 22.03.2011, if not already recovered, till the stay application filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the CESTAT, Bangalore.

¶14

It is made clear that the stay application as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be decided by CESTAT, Bangalore without having regard to any of the observations made in this order.

¶15

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶16

No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶17

G.ROHINI, J

¶18

_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶19

Date: 09.04.2013 KLP

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, v. The Asst. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, v. The Asst. Commissioner

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

Sri K. v. Rayudu, Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s Chebrole Agro Private Ltd., Vs The Asst. Commissioner Customs and Service Tax Range

M/s. Srinidha Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)

M/s Enmar Logistics Private Limited, Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/s.Sharat Industries Ltd. Vs The Asst. Commissioner