2024 (7) TMI 1043 - HC - Service Tax

Court Remands Case for Reconsideration Due to Petitioner's Health and COVID Impact; New Orders Expected in Three Months.

M/s. Speciality Pharmacy, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Shri. Selvarasu. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals -I), The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai

The HC set aside the original and appellate orders, remanding the matter for reconsideration due to the petitioner's health issues and COVID-19 impact. ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation - benefit of abatement - Section 60B r/w Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the discharge summary issued by the Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The said document records that the petitioner was admitted with “triple vessel coronary artery disease”. It also records that the petitioner was diagnosed as a diabetic 13 years earlier - The facts and circumstances warrant providing the petitioner an opportunity by putting the petitioner on terms. By taking into account the fact that the petitioner had earlier remitted 7.5% towards tax demand, reconsideration is necessary by directing the petitioner to remit an additional 7.5% of the disputed tax demand. The matter is remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits an additional 7.5% of the disputed tax demand within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to order in original and appellate order, interpretation of service tax provisions, consideration of personal circumstances for non-appearance, delay in filing appeal, remittance of tax demand, remand for reconsideration.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging both an order in original and an appellate order. The petitioner, who provided construction services, argued that only the service portion is liable for service tax under Section 60B r/w Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner claimed entitlement to abatement and suggested a 50-50 liability division with the service recipient. Additionally, the petitioner agreed to remit an additional 7.5% of the disputed tax demand for a remand. The respondents contended that the petitioner's non-appearance at personal hearings and the delay in filing the appeal led to its rejection.The court considered the petitioner's hospitalization for 'triple vessel coronary artery disease' in December 2021, along with the petitioner's diabetic condition. The petitioner attributed non-attendance at hearings to severe effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and heart issues. Acknowledging these circumstances, the court set aside the original order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to remit an additional 7.5% of the disputed tax demand within 15 days. Furthermore, the petitioner could submit an additional reply with supporting documents within the same period. The court instructed the authority to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the petitioner's reply.The judgment emphasized the need to consider personal circumstances and allowed for a fresh review based on the petitioner's health conditions and the remittance made. The court's decision to remand the matter for reconsideration highlighted the importance of providing opportunities for parties to present their case effectively. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with no costs and closing related miscellaneous petitions.