Authority under circular for instalment request was absent, so the Deputy Commissioner's order on arrear service tax was unsustainable.

The governing circular vested consideration of a request for thirty-six instalments for arrear service tax in the Chief Commissioner, not the Deputy Commissioner (Technical). Because the request was addressed to the Commissioner and the record did not show valid approval by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner (Technical) lacked authority to pass the impugned order. The text also states that the Commissioner himself had no authority to consider the request under the circular in these circumstances. The order was therefore without authority and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner (Technical) had authority to decide the petitioners' request for grant of thirty-six instalments for payment of arrear service tax.

Analysis: The request for thirty-six instalments was addressed to the Commissioner, and the governing circular vested consideration of such a request in the Chief Commissioner. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Technical), and the record did not establish valid approval by the Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner (Technical), and even the Commissioner, lacked authority to consider the request for thirty-six instalments under the circular.

Conclusion: The impugned order was without authority and was liable to be quashed.

---