Court Urges Appeal on Service Tax Order Beyond Limitation; Writ Petition Dismissed Without Costs.

The HC addressed the challenge to the order-in-original levying service tax for 2014-15 and 2015-16, questioned for being beyond the limitation period. The court advised the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, within thirty days. The Writ Petition was disposed of, urging the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy, with no costs imposed, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of order-in-original dated 30.12.2021 for levying service tax for the periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 under proviso to Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the order-in-original dated 30.12.2021, which imposed a service tax of Rs. 13,92,489.00 for the periods 2014-15 and 2015-16. The challenge was based on the grounds that the impugned order was beyond the limitation period. The court, after considering the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, determined that the matter required adjudication to ascertain if the order was indeed beyond limitation. Consequently, the court suggested that the petitioner should pursue the remedy of appeal available under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The court emphasized that the petitioner should opt for the appeal process within thirty days from the date of the judgment. It was stated that if the appeal is lodged within the specified timeframe, the appellate authority would review the case in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the Writ Petition with the observation that the petitioner should utilize the avenue of appeal to address the concerns raised regarding the order-in-original. No costs were imposed on the petitioner, and any related miscellaneous petitions were deemed closed as a consequence of the judgment.

---