2013 (1) TMI 91 - HC - Service Tax

High Court Limits Coercive Steps Pending Tribunal Decision

M/s SIVA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS Versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/ THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD & Others

The High Court directed the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner until the Tribunal decides on the delay condonation and interim ... Condonation of delay of 104 days - petitioner has paid around Rs.68,00,000/- towards service tax and Rs.5,00,000/- towards interest - Held that:- The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to initiate or pursue any coercive steps against the petitioner under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 or any other appropriate provision, till disposal of the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay and for grant of interim relief in the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Tribunal on 26-9-2012. The Revenue shall however be at liberty to pursue appropriate steps for recovery of the liability as determined in the Order-in-Original dated 30-1-2012 after disposal by the Tribunal of the aforementioned applications of the petitioner. Issues:1. Liability determination for service tax by the 2nd respondent.2. Imposition of penalties and interest.3. Appeal filed by the petitioner along with a delay condonation application.4. Coercive measures by the Revenue against the petitioner.5. Reluctance of the Tribunal to expedite consideration of the petitioner's applications.6. Relief sought by the petitioner from the High Court.Analysis:1. The 2nd respondent determined the petitioner's liability for service tax, penalties, and interest amounting to approximately Rs.68,00,000. The penalties included a significant amount along with additional penalties for failure to file returns and delayed payment. The petitioner had already paid around Rs.73,00,000 towards service tax and interest.2. The petitioner appealed against the order and filed an application for condonation of a 104-day delay due to a partner's ill-health. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for the miscellaneous applications on a later date.3. The Revenue took coercive measures by issuing garnishee orders to corporate entities owing money to the petitioner. Feeling pressured by these actions and the Tribunal's delay in addressing their applications, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief.4. The High Court, after hearing both parties, directed respondents 2 to 4 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner until the Tribunal decides on the delay condonation and interim relief applications. The Revenue was allowed to pursue recovery steps after the Tribunal's decision on the petitioner's applications.5. The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, providing relief to the petitioner but did not award any costs. The judgment aimed to balance the petitioner's right to appeal and the Revenue's right to recover the determined liability, ensuring a fair process for both parties.