TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, subject to a condition that the writ petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- within a period of three weeks. 2.The appellants are the respondents before the writ Court. The respondent before us, as the writ petitioner, challenged the Order-in- Original No.14/2011 dated 27.04.2011, wherein and whereby the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax and interest also by imposing penalty on the assessee/writ petitioner. The said order was put to challenge before the writ Court after seven years, only when the properties belonging to the writ petitioner was put into public auction for realization of the tax due and other amount payable by the writ petitioner. 3.Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority, the writ petitioner was not aware of the said order or any subsequent developments and therefore, they did not challenge the Order-in-Original immediately. He further submitted that even otherwise, before bringing the property for auction, the appellants/respondents should have issued notice to the writ petitioner. 5.We heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6.At the time of entertaining the writ appeal, we have directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 27.04.2018 and the said order of status quo is still in force. 7.The present writ appeal is arising out of an interim order of stay granted by the writ Court, while entertaining the writ petition challenging the order of the adjudicating author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after such inordinate delay of seven years. 9.Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would also reveal that the petitioner has not explained as to why they approach this Court after a period of seven years without even filing a statutory appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, except to state that the writ petitioner was constrained to close down their operations due to severe financial crunch and further labour unrest and management rejigs have contributed to valuable time having been lost much to the writ petitioner's own prejudice. Needless to say that when the writ petitioner had suffered an order at the hands of the adjudicating authority as early as on 27.04.2011, unless and until such order is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, more particularly, when the very impugned proceedings was passed as early as on 24.07.2011 and as against such proceedings, a statutory appellate remedy was very much available to the writ petitioner before the concerned appellate authority. It is relevant to refer the recent decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellants, reported in (2018)3 SCC 85, (cited supra), at this juncture, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 as observed as follows:- "16. It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons discussed, of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bodies/institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order." 17. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere ask....