Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Maa Kalyani Electrical-Through ... vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:29223-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 5009 of 2025
M/s. Maa Kalyani Electrical-through its proprietor Pravesh Chandra
Mandal, aged about 46 years, S/o. Tarni Mandal, office at Bikanipur,
Gamharia, Kandra, P.O. & P.S.- Kandra, District- Saraikela-
Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, Room No. 128, North Block, PO- New Delhi
G.P.O., P.S.- North Avenue, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Commissioner, central Goods and Services Tax &C Ex.
Ranchi Zone, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), Bir Chand Patel
Path P.O. & P.S. Patna -800001
4. The Commissioner, Central Goods and services Tax &C Ex. Outer
Circle Road, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur Road Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.
5. The Commissioner (Appeal) Central Goods and services Tax
&Central Excise 2nd floor Grand Emrald Ashok Nagar, P.O. & P.S.
-Argora, Ranchi Jharkhand
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Sr. S.C. (CGST)
Mr. Anurag Vijay Jr. S.C. (CGST)
Mr. Shivam Singh, Jr. S.C. (CGST)
---------
03/Dated: 22.09.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral)
1. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following
substantial reliefs:-
"... ... issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST
& Central Excise, Ranchi dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure 6),
2025:JHHC:29223-DB
whereby the Presiding Officer has rejected the appeal of the
petitioner and has observed that, "I find that this office has
already issued order in appeal No. 06/JSR/2023 dated
10.01.2023 against OIO52/ST/DC/JSR-III/21-22 dated
03.03.2022 in respect of the Appellant and a copy of the same
has already been provided to the concerned under the
prevailing law. Therefore I find the appeal filed again on the
dated 13.02.2023 against the same OIO cannot be entertained
or admitted for order in appellant at this forum due to legality
constrained as once a judgment has been given, the judge is
"functus officio", he has no power to make changes in his
decision or order, which can only be questioned by aggrieved
person presiding in the further court of appeal. This order was
passed arbitrarily prejudice to the interest of the petitioner and
with the passage of this order there is apparent wrong on the
face record as well as abuse of process of law."
2. The facts are not in dispute.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, filed an
appeal before the Appellate Authority on the following grounds:-
(a) The petitioner had discharged service tax liability with
interest before issuance of show-cause notice.
(b) The petitioner was not contesting the service tax
liability.
(c) The impugned order is liable to be set aside.
2025:JHHC:29223-DB
3. It is not in dispute that initially the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority solely on the
ground of having failed to make the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty
amount and this is so recorded in the impugned order dated
10.01.2023. It shall be apt to reproduce paragraphs 12 and 13 of the
said order which read as under:-
"12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the
considered view that as per in Section 35F of Central Excise
Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Act ibid the appellant is
required to deposit 7.5% of duty amount before filing of appeal
and to furnish the proof of such payment along with appeal
filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant failed
to deposit the amount as required under Section 35/Section 83
of the Act ibid and therefore, I am constrained to dismiss the
appeal without going into the merits of the case.
13. The appeal in diseased for non compliance of
mandatory pre-deposit."
4. The writ petitioner thereafter again approached the Appellate
Authority by claiming that it had now paid the requisite 7.5% of the
duty amount and requested to reconcile the total tax payable and
further claimed that there was no short levy in the case and therefore
its appeal be allowed.
5. However, strangely enough, the Appellate Authority instead of
entertaining the appeal dismissed the same by observing that it had
become "functus officio" and had no power to make changes in his
2025:JHHC:29223-DB
earlier decision/order, which could only be questioned by the
aggrieved person in further court of appeal.
6. To say the least, the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority
in its order dated 17.01.2024 is absolutely fallacious and is based on
a complete misunderstanding of the law.
7. As observed above, the appeal at the earlier occasion was
dismissed solely on the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to
make the pre-requisite mandatory deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount
before filing of the appeal and not on merits and this has been
specifically noted in the order dated 10.01.2023. Therefore, once the
appeal had not been decided on merits but had, in fact, not been
entertained, there was no question of the Authority of having become
"functus officio" after the deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount as
alleged by the writ petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed by
the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi, is
ordered to be set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number.
The Appellate Authority shall proceed to decide the appeal in
accordance with law after verifying the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty
amount alleged to have been deposited by the writ petitioner.
9. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
September 22, 2025
N.A.F.R./Manoj.cp2
