2024 (6) TMI 450 - HC - Service Tax

Court Orders Refund of Excess Payment with Bank Guarantee; Appeal Process to be Expedited for Fair Balance.

K.A. Ramadas Versus The Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, The Chief Manager, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals)

The HC disposed of the Writ Petition, ordering the respondents to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioner, contingent upon the petitioner ... Seeking refund of excess amount recovered from the petitioner's account - Department without communicating the order has recovered an amount - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Commissioner admitted the petitioner's appeal against the Order in Original and directed the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. The fourth respondent/the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) is directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the defenses that are available to the Revenue. Considering the fact that the petitioner is only required to deposit Rs. 54,785/-, in case an appeal was filed under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, the respondents are directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 14,16,115/- (Rs. 14,70,900/- – Rs. 54,785/-) to the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance amount to secure the interest of the Revenue. Petition disposed off. Issues involved: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioner's account. The specific case of the petitioner was that they did not receive the show cause notice or the subsequent order, and the Department recovered an amount without proper communication. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, challenging the Order in Original. The main contention was regarding the amount required to be deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the order was dispatched to the address provided by the petitioner.Details of the Judgment:1. The petitioner contended that they did not receive the show cause notice or the Order in Original, leading to the recovery of an excess amount. They filed a statutory appeal challenging the order. 2. The petitioner argued that as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they were only required to deposit a specific amount, and the excess amount recovered should be refunded. 3. The respondents claimed that the appeal was not maintainable as the order was sent to the petitioner's registered address, and it was deemed received on the day it was returned. 4. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner demanded payment of service tax for a specific period and also mentioned penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Due to the petitioner's failure to respond, the Deputy Commissioner passed an Order in Original confirming the demand and imposing penalties on the petitioner. 6. The Appellate Commissioner admitted the petitioner's appeal against the Order in Original and directed the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. 7. The Court directed the respondents to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioner, considering the amount required to be deposited under Section 35F, subject to the petitioner providing a bank guarantee for the balance amount.Conclusion: The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the Court ordered the refund of the excess amount to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions to secure the interest of the Revenue.