Court allows petitioner in chitty business to pay filing fees with State Bank of India demand drafts within 30 days.

The court allowed the petitioner, engaged in a chitty business, to pay filing fees for statutory appeals through demand drafts drawn from the State Bank of India within 30 days, provided they had not expired. The court's focus was on procedural compliance, ensuring the appeals would be considered on merits if payment was made within the specified timeframe. The judgment implicitly indicated that stay petitions filed along with the appeals would also be comprehensively reviewed. The respondents' refusal to accept demand drafts was addressed, emphasizing the petitioner's valid attempt to comply within the limitation period.

---

---

Issues:
1. Acceptance of demand drafts for filing fees in lieu of online payment for appeals under section 85(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Consideration of stay petition filed along with the appeal on merits.
3. Imposition of service tax on the petitioner for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2018-2019.
4. Refusal to accept demand drafts submitted by the petitioner for filing fees.

Acceptance of Demand Drafts for Filing Fees:
The petitioner, engaged in a chitty business, challenged the imposition of service tax on contract carriages treated as rent-a-cab services by the respondents. Statutory appeals were filed under section 85(1) of the Act against the orders issued for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2018-2019. The petitioner, facing technical snags in online payment, submitted demand drafts drawn through the State Bank of India. The respondents refused to accept the demand drafts, leading to the appeals not being considered. The court acknowledged the petitioner's bona fides, permitting payment of filing fees through the online method within 30 days, provided the demand drafts had not expired.

Consideration of Stay Petition:
The petitioner sought a direction to consider the stay petition filed along with the appeal on merits. The court's judgment primarily focused on the acceptance of filing fees through the online method, ensuring the appeals would be considered on merits if the payment was made within the specified timeframe. The stay petition's consideration was implicit in the directive regarding the filing fees, indicating that the appeals would be reviewed comprehensively, including any associated stay petitions.

Imposition of Service Tax:
The respondents assessed the petitioner's contract carriages as taxable services under the Service Tax Act, despite the petitioner's denial. Orders were issued imposing significant amounts for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2018-2019. The petitioner challenged these impositions by filing statutory appeals under section 85(1) of the Act, leading to the current legal proceedings. The judgment did not delve deeply into the merits of the service tax imposition but focused on procedural aspects related to filing fees and payment methods.

Refusal to Accept Demand Drafts:
The respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, contended that the petitioner could now make the payment through the online method, as the system of accepting demand drafts had been discontinued. The court considered the petitioner's initial attempt to pay through demand drafts as a valid effort within the limitation period, emphasizing the need for procedural compliance. The judgment highlighted that if the demand drafts had expired, it would be the petitioner's responsibility to address the matter with the concerned bank. The refusal to accept demand drafts was a pivotal issue leading to the legal challenge and subsequent judgment.

---

---