2019 (1) TMI 1151 - HC - Customs

Court upholds statutory provisions, rejects taxpayer's plea, directs speedy disposal of pending appeals.

KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEPOSIT GUARANTEE FUND BOARD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE

The Court declined to interfere with the statutory provisions despite acknowledging the potential hardship faced by the taxpayer in contesting cases on ... Validity of assessment order - case of petitioner is that when an identical issue is pending in appeal concerning other assessment years, the authorities should not insist on the petitioner's facing one more proceeding - Held that:- This Court cannot use its power of mandamus to stultify the statutory provision. True, on an identical issue, compelling the tax payer to make pre-deposit and then contest the case may workout some hardship. But that is how the Statute has contemplated the proceedings. So long as those procedural parameters have not been called in question as illegal, this Court will not interfere - petition disposed off holding that the second respondent will dispose of the Exts.P2 and P3 appeals expeditiously in two months. Issues:1. Challenge to Ext.P5 notice for Assessment Year 2016-17 while appeals for other assessment years pending.2. Request for early disposal of Exts.P2 and P3 appeals.3. Legal implications of facing multiple proceedings on the same issue.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the Ext.P5 notice for the Assessment Year 2016-17, arguing that facing another proceeding on the same issue while appeals for other assessment years are pending would be unjust. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that a prompt disposal of the Exts.P2 and P3 appeals could potentially obviate the need for adjudication on the Ext.P5 notice. However, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs Department acknowledged the need for expeditious consideration of the pending appeals.2. The Court recognized the petitioner's concerns but noted that the law does not permit staying proceedings for other assessment years solely based on pending appeals. The Senior Standing Counsel highlighted that the statutory provisions dictate the proceedings, even if it results in the taxpayer facing multiple litigations after making pre-deposits due to adverse orders. The Court, acknowledging the procedural framework, declined to interfere with the statutory provisions.3. Despite acknowledging the potential hardship faced by the taxpayer in contesting cases on identical issues, the Court held that it cannot use its power of mandamus to override statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that as long as the procedural parameters are not challenged as illegal, it will not intervene. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the expeditious disposal of the Exts.P2 and P3 appeals within two months, while allowing the proceedings concerning the Ext.P5 notice to proceed as per the statutory requirements.