2025 (6) TMI 360 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Strikes Down Arbitrary Tax Demands on Port and Cargo Services, Protects Taxpayer Rights and Procedural Fairness

M/s. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate

The Appellate Tribunal (AT) addressed service tax demands on port, cargo handling, and GTA services. The Tribunal set aside the port services tax demand, ... Levy of service tax - port services, cargo handling services, and Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services - ELD THAT:- The authorities below should have refrained from passing an order in the remand proceedings when the issue was under consideration by the Tribunal. This is a serious disregard to judicial discipline. The appellants have been subjected to repeated proceedings on the same issue which is decided by the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case and in respect of the very same proceedings. The Bench in M/S. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2018 (8) TMI 330 - CESTAT CHENNAI] takes serious note of the same and cautions the authorities against any recurrence in this regard. Coming to the merits of the case, it is found that, the issue being already decided by this Bench, the impugned proceedings are infructuous as far as merits and consequences are concerned. However, for the sake of record, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Conclusion - i) The demand for service tax on port services was set aside. ii) The demand on cargo handling and GTA services was upheld but was already complied with by the appellant. iii) Penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether departmental authorities were obliged to refrain from adjudicating remand/re-examination proceedings on issues already under adjudication before the Tribunal in the same appeal (principle of judicial discipline / lis pendens / functus officio aspects). 2. Whether a subsequent order passed by the original adjudicating authority and upheld on internal appeal during the pendency of an identical matter before the Tribunal is sustainable where the Tribunal had already decided the same issues in an earlier round of proceedings in the appellant's favor. 3. Whether, on the merits, any part of the impugned order survived in view of the Tribunal's earlier final order modifying/setting aside demands and penalties in respect of the same services. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Obligation to refrain from adjudicating during Tribunal pendency (judicial discipline / lis pendens / functus officio) Legal framework: Administrative and judicial authorities must observe judicial discipline; when an identical issue is pending before a superior tribunal, ordinarily departmental authorities should refrain from taking fresh adjudicatory action that would undermine the appellate/tribunal process. Principles invoked include lis pendens, avoidance of parallel adjudication, and the requirement that authorities not frustrate appellate proceedings. Precedent treatment: The Court referred to earlier decisions (cited by counsel) addressing similar conduct by authorities; the Tribunal treated its own earlier final order in the same case as determinative for purposes of judicial discipline in the subsequent round. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that initiating and deciding remand/re-examination proceedings while the same issues were pending before the Tribunal constituted a 'serious disregard to judicial discipline.' The authorities below should have refrained from passing orders in remand proceedings when the identical issues were sub judice before the Tribunal; pursuing repeated proceedings on the same issues already decided by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case subjected the taxpayers to needless and duplicative litigation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - departmental authorities must abstain from re-adjudicating issues already under consideration by the Tribunal in the same case; such conduct may render subsequent orders vitiated by procedural impropriety. Obiter - expressions of caution and remonstrance against recurrence serve as guidance but do not create new substantive law. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the authorities erred in proceeding and cautioned against recurrence; the impugned proceedings were procedurally improper and therefore liable to be set aside. Issue 2 - Sustainability of subsequent orders during pendency where Tribunal had earlier decided same issues Legal framework: Final orders of the Tribunal in the same appeal sequence have determinative effect on subsequent adjudication in that set of proceedings; principles of finality in repeated litigation and the duty of lower authorities to give effect to existing appellate determinations are engaged. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on its own earlier final order in the first round of litigation as controlling for the second round; prior decisions referenced by counsel were considered supportive of the proposition that repeated proceedings on the same issue should not be permitted. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that it had earlier modified the impugned order by setting aside demand in respect of one service and setting aside penalties, thereby altering the legal position between the parties. Given that adjudicatory posture, subsequent confirmation of demands by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) during pendency of an appeal before the Tribunal was inconsonant with the Tribunal's prior determination in the same case. The subsequent orders were therefore treated as infructuous insofar as they attempted to relitigate matters already decided by the Tribunal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a Tribunal has passed a final order in an appeal in the same proceedings, subordinate authorities should not re-impose demands or penalties on the same issues while the appeal remains pending; such subsequent orders are liable to be set aside. Obiter - comments on the correctness of departmental fact-finding in hypothetical future remands. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the later impugned order as infructuous and procedurally improper, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. Issue 3 - Merits: whether any part of the impugned order survived after the Tribunal's earlier final order Legal framework: Where an appellate tribunal has already determined the substantive legal issues (demand upheld or set aside; penalties set aside), later departmental proceedings cannot revive liabilities already extinguished or set aside, absent fresh material or lawful basis. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied its earlier final order in the same case as dispositive on merits for the second round, noting which demands and penalties had been set aside and which upheld in the first round. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal's first-round order had (a) set aside demand in respect of port services, (b) upheld demand in respect of cargo handling services and GTA services (raw sugar), and (c) set aside penalties for cargo handling and GTA services. Consequently, the second-round departmental proceedings could not, in substance, alter that settled position. On merits the impugned proceedings had become infructuous; for the sake of record the Tribunal nevertheless set aside the impugned departmental appellate order and granted consequential relief. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the substantive effect of the Tribunal's earlier final order governed the parties' liabilities; the departmental orders inconsistent with that final order were to be set aside. Obiter - no further detailed re-examination of the substantive merits was required because the earlier determination controlled. Conclusion: No substantive portion of the impugned order survived the Tribunal's earlier final determination; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief as per law. Cross-references Issues 1 and 2 are closely linked: the obligation to refrain from re-adjudication during pendency (Issue 1) informs the conclusion that subsequent departmental orders inconsistent with a Tribunal's own earlier final order in the same case are unsustainable (Issue 2). Issue 3 follows as the practical consequence on merits - the impugned order became infructuous and was set aside.